I wonder if angels and stuff would be aliens. I mean technicallly, they're not from earth. And their not of the same species.

That's not what I said at all. Religion almost acts as an alternative to science these days, but shouldn't be so in a way where they should battle eachother (as they sometimes do)

People who are religious will argue against the statement "being tricked" because they truley beleive in their religion.

You could point to the christians who claim dinasour bones, etc. are placed on earth to "test our love of god" or whatnot as an example of why Religion and Science should not collide. You can't tell a religious person to logically look at things such as the origins of man and the universe, they could simply point out their beliefs (which are non-falsafiable) and they will be done with it, and then your "proof" doesn't mean anything to them.

Therefore they are two seperate things

Yes, but there are not two different truths. In the end they will either have to resolve or one will break. Trouble is, that end is pretty hard to get to.

I think what we're dealing with here is a question of truth, and a question of fact. Facts are cold and hard; they're definite. The fact that "the earth is flat" was believed for many centuries, until someone eventually realized that, "in fact", the earth was round, and our solar system is helio-centric, and not geo-centric. Facts change as sciences changes and, most likely, nothing "Factual" will remain that way forever. Truth is far more broad, and far harder to pin down. I think that truth is timeless, something that everyone claims to know, but really only nibbles away at new pieces of it each day. Truth is a journey of discovery, fact is a temporary solution to a question.

How do you know that? Perhaps it is the case that two things which seem incompatible to you are actually both true. We've seen it happen in both science and religion.

Well "truth" is pretty much a subjective thing, there is no real objective reality/truth since there is (at least to our knowledge) an observer.

Therefore in the case of Science v. Religion, neither of them is the "absolute truth" so its not a matter of one eventually winning.

They have worked aside eachother for thousands of years and will most likley continue to for the rest of civilization.

Science doesn't claim to hold "absolute truths"; it's essentially the sum of mankinds' attempts to understand the mechanisms behind natural phenomena. It's a study of the reality in which we live taken down to extreme levels of detail in the hope to further our knowledge. Unfortunately it is at a point where most modern research falls outside of the understanding of the layman. The religious get up in arms about parts of science that seem to conflict with their religion's writings and world view, ignoring the fact that what's actually happened is that someone has studied natural phenomena very carefully and is stating their findings.

To an extent as a non-religious person it feels no different to watching someone scream that the sky is actually green, while we can easily look at the sky and say it's blue. It's just that it's a lot more complicated and time-consuming with modern science.

If this statement is true, then you're probably going to hell. Why? Because it is overwhelmingly statistically likely that your religion is wrong.

However, if (like I believe) there are many paths in life, all religions have good, etc. etc., then there is one definite truth but it involves including many religions.

No, actually, it isn't hard and that's the point.

Evolution by natural selection isn't a controversial topic within biologists. The age of the Earth isn't a controversial topic within geologists. Heliocentrism isn't a controversial topic within physicists. These ends have already been reached.

Dark matter, the Higg's boson, conflicts between Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.. these are delightfully controversial issues with much debate on the numerous sides to each topic. If the religious were genuinely concerned with the pursuit of truth, then they would offer some insight into any of these topics, questions that scientists genuinely are struggling to answer. But they're not.
They dogmatically stick to arguments that have been disproved and debunked already, often hundreds or even thousands of years ago, soley to maintain an arbitrary and deluded view of reality.

Now if we're going to start committing 'fallacy by catchy celebrity quote', let me banter this one in.

I still think that close encounters bible text was much more interesting.