The real religion?

[KevinM1]

I thought it was in there, but went back, and found it was not.  But what I was referring to is that any science that is not from first hand experience, but is knowledge based on what others observed.  Witnesses are unreliable right?

Wrong, science is based upon experimental observations that are replicable.  It doesn;t matter whether or not someone else saw it, if no one else sees it when they do the same thing.  In fact, it doesn't matter that almost everyone sees it...if a single person doesn't.  That's the -entire- point of peer review and replication.  

You're welcome.

Moreover the observations tend to be incredibly detailed, usually after rigorous number crunching and double-checking even before anything is published for further scrutiny.  It is nothing like a layperson observing an event and attempting to remember it later.  And any attempts to equivocate the two stem from either gross ignorance or pure intellectual dishonesty.

That it's even a point of contention is ridiculous, and only highlights that certain people have no idea what they're talking about or trying to argue.  Try again.