One of the cornerstone principles of science is the concept of falsifiability, that is for something to be called science it needs to be possible to prove the hypothesis to be false through observation and experiment. String Theory for example is a work in progress, with many predictions that cannot be tested due to lack of our technical capability. That said, experiments can be devised to validate or disprove those theories, it just may be that those experiments have not yet been funded or within our current capability. This is why String theory is not held up as a generally accepted model of physics, its just one possibility that is being explored. Many variants of String Theory have already been discarded as they predicted observations that are not seen (large numbers of magnetic monopoles for example), or contrary to observed fact (e.g. atoms could not form), hence they are falsifiable. You have a lot to understand when it comes to the philosophy of science and what it means to conduct science. There are NOT "two groupings" of science, repeating the assertion does not make it so

No, the concepts of "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" are created by those who are unable to deny the vast quantities of observational data confirming evolution, but still don't want to believe that humans evolved from proto-apes. There is no scientific concept of these two separate phenomenon

People directly observe evolution every single day. Just go to your local university's undergraduate fruit fly lab. You can see it, test it, measure it, validate it. They've done fruit fly experiments where they have caused speciation (i.e. producing two branches of evolutionary fruit flies lines that cannot re-produce with one another)

Sorry, there are not "two kinds of science", no science can be absolutely proven 100%, but evolution has been tested and validated far more than the Standard Model Go into any undergraduate bio lab and you can directly observe the evolutionary process, be it with fruit flies, or antibiotic resistant bacteria. You can see evolution and natural selection taking place in real time. Of course now you're going to come back with some kind of argument that this is "micro-evolution" which is somehow different "macro-evolution" BS. Even the Roman Catholic Church has indicated that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the Theory of Evolution.

I'm sure you can then provide a citation for your conclusion. Every single thing I've read indicates pipelines are 4-10 times safer per barrel mile transported.

Returning the stage doesn't require a LOT of extra fuel, because the mass of the stage is considerably lighter once it separates (all the fuel required to launch the first stage, all of its fuel, the second stage, all of its fuel, and the payload has been consumed). This is why the re-entry burn only uses 3 of the 9 engines and the final landing 1 of 9. I believe Elon has quoted a 25% loss in payload as a result of the changes and fuel needed for reuse. Even if it costs $10M to inspect and refurb the rocket, the savings will be substantial. BTW do you get a discount on your airline ticket when you fly on a "used" aircraft? SpaceX can sell it as a qualified launch vehicle.

SpaceX has been profitable for several years now

Except it typically costs more (a lot more) to execute someone vs. incarcerating them for life.

Highly Radioactive and long-half lives are mutually exclusive. Anything that isn't gone in a few years is by definition, not highly radioactive. Again, it would be very bad, very very bad, but coming back to the topic at hand, it would not prevent future civilizations from exploiting these resources

Actually only the first 3 flights of the Falcon 1 were a total loss. All other flights have achieved every primary mission objective, including CRS-1 that suffered an engine failure that would that terminated the flight of any other rocket currently flying

No, Elon made his hundreds of millions creating Paypal and selling it to eBay. It took Tesla to make him a billionaire

Small contained fire. Interesting use of the definition. All of the Krypton and Xenon were released during the fire, more than half of the I-131, and 30%-40% of the CS-137. While much of the fuel remained in the reactor it is of much lower radioactivity. By mass, yes "most" of the stuff is still there, however when you look at it by radioactivity, 5,200 PBq of radioactive material was released during the fire vs. approximately 670 PBq of material remaining in the reactor today

Actually most of it will be non-fissile U-238 vapor which is what makes up the vast majority of commercial reactor fuel.When Chernobyl exploded it contained a grand total of 8kg of I-131 and 50kg of CS-137 (of which only half was released into the environment). Most of this would be effectively gone in 200-300 years Would nuking a nuclear power plant be bad, yes, very bad. Would it forever prevent a future civilization from exploiting the materials contained in our ruins, no

Yah, I remember how we lost half of Europe after Chernobyl blew up

Two sources come immediately to mind. Wood and coal (just like we used the first time around). Wood is renewable and there are still massive deposits of easily accessible coal (eastern slopes of the Rockies for example)