Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller for November 07, 2014

Float like a butterfly, sting like a beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

Notice that the guy saying gravity is just a theory isn’t brave enough himself to stand out on the ledge…

Um… Gravity is a fact… I think how it works, is the theory part.

You wonder why people are the way they are. I guess the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree….you know, if it falls…. it could just hover near the tree… what the heck did Sir Isaac know, anyway?… (Here, have a fig newton)

…said the CEO of ACME Corporation.

But he doesn’t have his ebola suit on…..

Gravity is at least provable. Any proposition where the observed results do not conform to the theory is considered false.

The fact that gravity can be verified by experiment is what makes it a Theory. Otherwise it would only be a Hypothesis. In science, a Theory is something strong enough that you can bet your life on it (and we all do, every day).Any time someone says “X is only a theory”, you immediately know they don’t understand what they are talking about.

The view is spectacular.

Would BLISS, be interchangeable with ignorance?

And the Earth is flat, the check is in the mail and you are a winner because Clearing House said so.

It’s even better in math. Anything called a “theorem” is something that can be proved, and someone’s already done it. Things that you strongly believe but haven’t been proved are called “conjectures”..But that’s only a lemma.

Should have lunched on magic mushrooms, then he would be able to fly!!!

It’s not gravity—it’s Intelligent Falling.

I am just going to repeat what everybody else have been saying for a very long time…

GRAVITY, it not just a Good Idea… ITS THE LAW.

and neither do you bounce…it’s sploosch… all over de place!

And some of those guys actually have won election.

So does this mean gravity did not work before Isaac Newton came up with his theory to explain it?.Never confuse the phenomena with the theory. Gravity works and Sir Isaac came up with the best theory to explain it. He can’t be blamed for the act that it doesn’t explain gravity at the sub-atomic level since that level was unknown in his day. His theory replaced the Greek theory of gravity because it explained things far better and produced provable results. Someday there might be a better theory to explain gravity, that does include the sub-atomic level, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for it. Sir Isaac is the only scientist ever to have produced three major scientific discoveries, which in my opinion makes him the top scientist of all time..“We account the scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.” – Isaac Newton, English mathematician and scientist, 1642-1727

Well, at least gravity is a proven theory.

My catchphrase — Gravity is weak but it always wins.

Gravity is a law, not a theory.

@rick scott:

First, you are misusing the word “theory”; read some of the comments above for a clear definition of what it means in the context of science.

You are conflating the start (or creation) of life with how it evolves over time. No one knows exactly how life began (or, really, how to even define it); evolution, on the other hand, is about the most solidly confirmed theory (read: fact) in science, drawing convergent and independent confirmation from multiple disciplines (genetics, physics, and geology, to name just three).

Lastly, imagine that those apes (as well as the myriad of other plant and animal branches) all appear in the geologic record in the order in which the evolved. That is, there is a pattern to how the changes within and between species occurs and it progresses in a logical and predictable fashion, which bears up without meaningful exception.In other words, speculating about something is fine, but demonstrable knowledge is actually useful. In this case, it underlies our ability to produce useful medical practice and saves lives.

YES! Hilarious, Wiley!They aren’t so much ‘anti-science’ as anti-reality.’Wouldn’t it be nice if the anti-science crowd weren’t hypocrites, and lived the ‘anti-science’ lifestyle?Then they wouldn’t be crowding the internet, the highways, hospitals…Of course, the price of a good cave would skyrocket.

I seem to recall reading the scientists of their day believed the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. Galileo and Copernicus were just a couple of stupid deniers.

@rick scott Since you don’t have the rather expensive tools needed to etch a microchip your computer doesn’t work, and doesn’t, in fact, exist.When somebody doesn’t know something what that proves is that that particular person doesn’t know it, nothing else.

I don’t get people here saying that gravity is a theory. Any reasonable person here knows that it is a FACT that if a person drops a weighted object while standing here on earth. gravity will cause that object to be pulled to the ground. THAT is a fact. Easily proven and shown.

That was before a recent Executive Order. (sorry; I couldn’t resist.)

Another one for you, Wiley. You really know where the buttons are!

GuiltyBystander: Copernicus and Galileo weren’t the first, several Greek philosophers came up with heliocentric solar systems and proofs. Columbus did not prove the world was round while “scientists” doubted, most (since those Greeks again) had demonstrated proof. Just as several Asian cultures recorded phases of Venus that date far earlier than 4004 BCE. Don’t require Latin or Germanic languages to record history, a lot of the world came up with ideas before they even existed and wrote it down.

Scientific theories cannot be proven; they can only be disproved (or refined). The ‘Law’ or theory of gravitation has been tested repeatedly, and is accepted as a stable model that is useful for explaining this aspect of nature. That’s as good as it gets in science.

Interestingly; quantum physics came along and new things were found about “gravity”, mass, and matter vs. energy. Also interestingly, a lot of that quantum findings supported the observations and contemplation behind much of Buddhist philosophy, and relationship to the universe, not to some “creator with a beard and bad temper”, but a more powerful force that indeed povides windows to what “Man” may only see with a more open mind, and greater intelligence, and much, much, practice in observing what is indeed beyond the hard physical, that doesn’t actually exist.

Button, button, who’s got the button? All God’s children got buttons….Push them buttons Mr. Miller….I’ll wade even through all the comments…

Nope. You are quoting the colloquial definition of the word theory which is very different to what it means in the context of science. In one of the first comments at the top of this page Randy_B presented definitions for this and other terms that are much closer to those used in science as opposed to common language.

Sarah Palin, Marsha Blackburn, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, Louis Gohmert, Joni Ernst and John Boehner go first, in any order.

Well, nobody really understands how gravity works, so it must be a myth… right?

I always find it amusing how many people think that science and religion are polar opposites and that they are incompatible. On both sides of the debate..For example: I remember a discussion I had once with a co-worker. Somehow the subject of the scientific theory of how all the continents were once a single super continent which later split into the land masses we know today came up (note: the church I belong to actually teaches that this scientific theory is true). My co-worker insisted that this theory was false. I pointed out to him that the Bible itself says that the theory is true. His response? “That is only in the King James version.” Essentially, if science says it, he felt that it must be wrong, and if the Bible agrees with science, then that version of the Bible is wrong. (eye roll!).I have seen similar reactions by those on “team science” who discount anything in the Bible… simply because it is in the Bible..Basically, there seem to be people who discount anything if the source of that information is science/religion (depending on which side they choose for themselves).

No, gravity exists. The THEORY is what causes gravity to exist. You’e welcome.

Let the hate begin. Looks like he wants to get rid of his ugly boss.

He cherry-picked it. If you look closely, you see he just copied the second of multiple entries. That is, he skipped the one (likely the first) that would have proved him wrong.

Night-Gaunt49 to Tigdi: Understatement! Punctuated stasis does not require transitional species. Indeed, Thomas Huxley cautioned Darwin about the problems on insisting on gradualism. Fortunately, I never had a problem with evolution, as my father had three Upper Cretaceous fossil discoveries about the time of my birth while pastoring a church. I went on fossil hunts before I could walk.

My point remains: some creationists believe that a single unknown proves that thousands of knowns just aren’t.

I believe it is considered the “Law of Gravity.”