I think one of the problems with discussions (especially internet discussions) is the various way words can be interpreted, and that if people are interpreting the same word differently, it can lead to misunderstandings etc.

For example, it seems to me the word "Evolution" has different meanings for different people, the two most common being:

1. Evolution - ability of a living species to adapt to its surroundings over time.

2. Evolution - belief that life on earth originiated as a random accident.rather than the work of a God.

I think whether the person believes 1 or 2 can influence significantly a conversation, especially if the person they are debating with thinks they mean the opposite meaning. I, for example, believe number 1 but not number 2.

Then regarding science, I think it's important to make distinction between the factual and the theoretical.

Factual science, to me, is that which can be observed and documented. The previous example of gravity is this. We can observe gravity in action. Theoretical science, however, is something we cannot observe. Origin of our planet and human life is this. There are no eye-witness accounts of what happened, no way to observe this process. Thus, the result is theory. Scientists attempt to explain our origins by looking at the world today, and they do this with the limited technology of the present. Historians do a similar thing with the past, limited by what documents have survived. Historians can only present interpretation of data and scientists can only do the same - but unless it is observable or has been observed by eye-witnesses - then it is mere theory. Paranormal investigators do the same. They may experience something supernatural, but how they interpret it will depend on their own faith systems.

I personally don't have a problem with observable science. I find it very interesting. I do have a problem, though, with theories being passed off as fact, especially ones that exclude without questiong the existence of a God when no one can prove no God exists. Of course, no one can prove God exists either. And what cannot be proven either way remains open for speculation. And if God cannot be disproven, God remains a possibility. If God is a possibility, God should not be written out of science books. It is a poor scientist who writes out a possibility based on personal prejudice - prejudice being any pre-judgement.