By a "line of logic" I can only assume you are referring to a logical construct. Those always contain evidence. Evidence in science consists of observations that fit and provide the foundation for logical constructs. Take gravity for example. The first proof, or evidence of Newton's law of gravity was that apples fall according to his formulated logical construct.
Later evidence came by observing that planetary motion followed the same law. After the general therory of relativity, Newton's law was not disproven, as some on this thread claimed. It was found to be a special case of Einstien's logical construct. That finding of a logical construct already proven with evidence to be a special case of a more general law, is covered by the correspondence principle. That principle is...any new theory, whatever its character--or details--should reduce to the well-established theory to which it corresponds when the new theory is applied to the circumstances for which the less general theory is known to hold.
Basically the discussion on the thread involves science vs. claims based on Biblical stories. In post 163 I gave a fundamental teaching that came directly from God. It addresses the discussion on this thread directly and states in no uncertain terms that science will find the universe exactly as it appears. There will be nothing to back up creationist stories, or design theories to be found.
Matt: 38-39" Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
Some would take the story of the Passion and Resurrection as the sign of the prophet Jonah. That story is not the point, nor the sign. The sign is a major part of the proof, or evidence, that no other religion has. The sign of the Jonah is the visitation of the Holy Spirit to each and every man. Note God is speaking directly to the reader, not just those present at the time.
John 14:18-21 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
Note that the miricles Jesus performed were done and witnessed by folks that already knew Him. Obviously this is all something many folks miss. Especially, the humanists like Dawkins. They are clueless. Hence Dawkin's conclusion, "Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops." See God left his own with much more than faith. He gave us the same evidence He gave to those he met while He was alive. The Holy Spirit, the sign of Jonah. Seek and you will find the sign of Jonah.
God said there would be no miraculous sign, but many folks seek it and conjure up volumes of rubbish to support a claim that it exists. God believes in the KISS principle, the above passages in His own words amongst others, makes it clear. Niether the ancients, nor contemporary man needs to know anything more than what the Holy Spirit tells them regarding the concerns of God.
Mark 10: 13-14 "People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." There is nothing to be gained by denying and obfuscating the truth that God made plainly evident for all to see. There is a great loss to be had though, by placing a stumbling block in the path of a child.
You are incorrectly defining faith. Faith is not belief without evidence. It is the belief in the empiracally unprovable.
While speculating that RNA evolved into DNA is not an act of faith, you are not doing that.
You are saying that RNA "probably" or "without much doubt" evolved into DNA.
Actually, it would be better to describe that statement as objectively erroneous than one of faith. There is quite a bit of doubt that occurred.
If you insist that it occurred without offering empiracal evidence you are making a statement of faith.