Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Claimed" being the operative word
IMO a better way to put it would be that genetic descent ONLY creates nested hierarchies, whereas any other process of origin could create a different structure, and there's no particular reason why they shouldn't.
With magic mushrooms?
What is that experimental data if not "evidence" that SUSY theory is falsified, along with every "cold dark matter" theory put forth by mainstream theory that is based upon SUSY theory, namely *ALL* of it?
IMO it still comes back to pure empirical laboratory physics. You and I both believe in things that can be demonstrated in the lab. We may not agree on things like SUSY theory that have in effect already been falsified in the lab IMO, but it's not likely that we are going to disagree over things that "work" in the lab.
So shouldn't we now discard SUSY theories and every astronomy theory that is based upon SUSY theory?
Ya, but that's a very specific type of theory, one that enjoys empirical laboratory support. You're comparing metaphysical apples to empirical oranges by comparing SUSY theory to evolutionary theories, or electrical engineering theories. Some theories enjoy strong empirical laboratory support, others do not.
What empirical evidence supports SUSY theory or any cosmology theory that is based upon SUSY theory? You're improperly shifting the burden of proof onto me, when in fact it falls to you. If the Higgs and SUSY particles exist, where's the empirical evidence of their existence? I'll be happy to give you some slack as it relates to the Higgs Boson because there are so many possible energy ranges to consider, but SUSY theories have very specific energy ranges associated with such extensions to standard theory, and those energy ranges have already been looked at. Nothing is there.
Only if you ignore God's word:
I don’t buy this lame argument that God would be a deceiver if your fallible, scientific interpretation was not correct.
That’s my point. You can’t.
Before I will answer your question, I'd like to ask a question of my own: my post was made in response to a very special claim. Neither the original claim nor my answer had anything to do with SUSY, Higgs Bosons or dark energy.
If it was possible for you to go back in time to meet your common ape ancestor you would have experienced your common ape ancestor despite not seeing him or her reproduce your parents.
Sounds like you are describing a religion.
Since you guys have repeatedly demonstrated you have no mechanism to determine when your fallible interpretation of scripture is correct, then yes, I will continue to ignore it. When one of you can actually deliever on what "God's Word" is, then I will listen.
That's the only reasonable conclusion. I know you guys don't do "reasonable," of course.
Do you walk by faith or sight when you cross a busy street?
You'd never convince a jury with that logic.
Sounds like you are describing a religion.
Sometimes they didn't find anything and had to adapt their religion. I am quite certain that these adaptions will happen to your religion, if the predicted effects continue not to show up.
Sounds like you are describing a religion.
Sometimes they didn't find anything and had to adapt their religion. I am quite certain that these adaptions will happen to your religion, if the predicted effects continue not to show up.
Then by that logic, pretty much any theistic theory under the sun is worthy of consideration by your (non-empirical) standards IMO. If something like SUSY theory, which enjoys *ZERO* empirical laboratory support is worthy of further consideration, then all theistic beliefs must also be entertained and deemed "worthy".
Yet you seem to exclude the possibility that Jesus had some experiences (of God) that you personally did not?
Hmmm. Jesus said that in the end, we are *IN* God. He started "looking" for the being he called the "Father" through prayer and meditation. Have you tried that recently?
But absolutely every "yada" on my list lacks empirical laboratory support. Is "God" (as creator) on your list of "scientific theories"? If not, why not?
They've been "not showing up" rather consistently now since the theory was originally proposed. That's never stopped astronomers from pointing at the sky and claiming that SUSY particles did it. The same can be said of "dark energy", particularly since not a single astronomer can even tell us where it comes from. It can certainly be said for Guth's "inflation" genie. I mean he literally 'invented' the concept in his head, and then impolitely killed it off in the next breath. It's necessarily an 'act of faith' on the part of the "believer" *FOREVER AND EVER* because it can NEVER have any tangible effect on any atom in any lab.
I'm sure you listen to your heart on such matters all the time, you just don't necessarily relate to it as such. The "Golden Rule" is probably still engrained into your personal sense of "morality" somewhere in there IMO. 
