Scientists generally will tell you that answers we have today from science are not the final word. That is the nature of science; it changes as new information comes along. It is, after all, compiled by fallible humanity. Those who would set up science as the ultimate truth really are praising the cleverness of man. It is worth pointing out that a study found that half of all peer-reviewed scientific papers reached invalid conclusions, due to errors in research. Other research has uncovered the fact that fraud is disturbingly common in scientific research.

As science is fallible, changing and limited, we do well to make major social changes derived from science slowly.

...but a lousy master! Do you disagree?

What is the solution to evil?

A characteristic of God is that He has some attributes that are infinite. He exists infinitely past and future (the Alpha and Omega), knows all and so forth. Yet, when challenging religious concepts of god(s), atheists insist on treating god(s) as finite beings subject to approximately the same limitations as humans. Why do atheists pick and choose the characteristics of god(s) when trying to discredit religion?

God is infinite; no one made Him. He transcends physical laws (indeed, He is the origin of them).

I thought of Proverbs 25:2,

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

Here's my go on the UI parts of the transcript:

00:40) Charles: "If I look inside this, to be quite honest, it's like uh, it's like a space habitation module. I-, I-, I've been in one of those, which is really neat, because uh, it's like a home away from home and you can, you can live in there, you can sleep in there, you can do everything else. One of the other things that's really neat about it is how clean it is. [-ui-] In fact, I think [ISS astronaut] Don Pettit made the comment on orbit how pristine the vehicle was when he went inside, he talked about it smelling like a new car."

01:06) Elon: "In Florida and uh, California, uh, people are used to launch, launches occurring in Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral. If it's a new place, people aren't used to it, then you can get some people that like, just, kind of file legal actions. They don't have a lot of merit, but they can just, really, really grind things to a halt.
So we're just looking it to be considered.. a rocket launch should be considered on par with, say, with some of the protections that are all afforded to use of gunfire, and fireworks, and lawnmowers *laughs* Literally, it's like, just add rockets to the list of, you know... That seems like a reasonable request *laughs*
Like you can't sue someone 'cos somebody's got a lawnmower next door, right? Rockets don't have that protection, so we gotta have a little, just, something like that."

02:49) Reporter: "Are you planning on adding more jobs to this facility?"

02:52) Elon: "Yeah, absolutely, we expect to grow quite a bit in the coming years.
We absolutely expect over the next several years to have several hundred direct jobs added in McGregor.
And then, of course, there's an amplification factor, so if, um, if every employee that we hire brings their family, and that generates jobs in terms of automobiles, housing, you know, plumbing, electricity, hotels, restaurants, so usually it's a 5x multiplier in terms of jobs creation, so effectively it would result in thousands of jobs in the McGregor/Waco area."

03:44) Elon: "Well what we're talking about would be an orbital launch facility, whereas in New Mexico it's a sub-orbital, so it's basically-- sub-orbital it's you just go up and you fall down, with orbit it's you go up and you stay up, so it's you've got a ground track that uh, that, uh, when you're orbiting Earth, you are circling Earth, that's it has to be on the coast, because if you're overflying a lot of cities, which you need to do to get to orbit, then you're putting people at risk.
That's why an in-land launch facility for an orbital space flight is very difficult to do and still achieve... and still be safe, for people on the ground.

"I think a lot of people who have been critical, have been critical because of a lack of precedent for what's occurred, and now that we've been able to go to the space station and back, I think that some of the.. I think that we've answered some of their concerns, I'm [not quite sure?] that's definitely done, so I think we're seeing a significant decrease of detractors and.. and you know, just looking at the facts and saying, okay, well, SpaceX is showing that it can be done, and so it's getting.. kind of go with the facts, basically."

That would be good news....

Western nations, including the U.S. and Australia, have their problems, but China has a far more repressive system. We allow people to meet peacefully together on a regular basis. We don't send tanks to run over peaceful protesters. We have a system of law that protects individuals to some degree from the state.

Wife?

Yes, it does, but some managers want only tools working for them. Everyone else can hit the trail.

Yes! This is *exactly* the way it should be! Why would someone expect anything else?

Don't go to work in the IT field, or you will be in for a nasty surprise!

Proceed.

"The result, they say, is a challenge to proponents of intelligent design who maintain that complex biological systems can only have been created by a divine force."

Oh, come on! You aren't even trying to be honest at this point! No one who can access the Internet has any excuse to give such a sloppy definition of Intelligent Design.

OK, say it with me: "Irreducible Complexity." Do you understand the words coming out of my keyboard? Apparently not! The term is IC, not just C. Even though some evolutionists deny that any complex system is irreducibly complex, that is not justification for distorting the ID position.