Pete- there are several answers to your various assertions, depending on which ones are involved and how you phrase them.

In this case you simply use the words 'belief' & 'faith' incorrectly when you attribute it to scientists. Saying" ..imo that is a faith position." does not make it so.
'Faith' is a very specific word, used to describe a position that can NOT be experimentally or scientifically tested & the tests revised & updated. The fact that science is always learning and refining its conclusions and is always open to new data does NOT... repeat..NOT make its current status one of 'faith'.
Some parts of paleontology and related studies will always be open, as we can never find examples of all stages of all entities. Most animals did not die where they could be preserved, thus the idea of THE 'missing link' is only a wish. What we find is 'occasional links'.
Now... this is important... while we can only find a tiny portion of the various stages, and must do a lot of comparison and guessing to fill in the gaps, the dating measurement techniques remain remarkably consistent!. The rocks ARE clocks when the decay of various elements and other *measurable* phenomena are properly applied! We KNOW that various strata are multi-millions of years old...not to day & hour, but close enough to discover relationships of various specimens.
They don't 'believe' these things as a matter of 'faith', they use them as we would a ruler or a laser test, because they ALWAYS are within constant parameters! These tests were applied to various scriptural parchment, and we know pretty closely how long ago they were written. We do NOT have any way to test and measure the claims and stories described in the documents! THAT is a matter of 'faith'.

Pete... this is not a matter of prefacing an assertion with "imo" and asserting it gives your claim of 'faith' a status as good as measurable scientific claims.. it-just-is-not.