One of the most well known events in the science vs. faith fiasco was a match up between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. The debate between was on the question "Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?"
Atheist science troll (AST), scientifically illiterate science worshiper (SISW) and SciPop devotee are three kinds of interaction that you can expect if you discuss science and the Bible on social media.
Faith and sight are opposites, like light and darkness, good and evil. When you have one you don't need the other, and vice versa. We also use them as concepts in a unified theory of everything.
Circumstantial evidence is when two things happen at the same time which may or may not be related, but we decide to use one as evidence for what we believe about the other.
The science vs. faith debate is smoke and mirrors because the words "science" and "faith" are poorly understood. The problem is that the words, as used, have definitions which don't fit the usage.
Dark matter doesn't exist. However it's necessary, in the popular science paradigm (SciPop), because the firmament is the source of gravitational interaction which keeps the universe in its current stable state.
The truth about God is so obvious that no one has an excuse not to believe, but we've been given free will to be able to believe whatever we want. For this reason there has to be a plausible alternative to the truth.
We're harmonizing science with the Bible. How can this be possible if, superficially, science and the Bible look completely different? We have to know what's real science and what's not.
We're relating the events of the Bible to natural processes for which there is physical evidence. There's abundant physical evidence of Noah's flood: the stratigraphic column from the Cambrian to the Quaternary.
Evolution is an extensively documented process of genetic change over time. Arguing against it is what makes Christians look like home-schooled, knuckle-dragging morons. Sorry for being blunt, that's just how it is.