Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller for June 05, 2009

Danae dismissing gravity !! Good grief, hasn’t she never heard about Newton and Einstein ??

perhaps that’s the point…i’ve followed her exploits for some time and i’ve arrived at that conclusion on more than one occasion. of course we know that lucy is far too flush with common sense…not to mention, horse sense…to fall prey to any of danae’s suggestions. so, too, and happily, that danae is so full of her own schemes that she will never be able to hear a thing lucy has to say as rebuttal.oh, and as far as lucy being real, she is as real to danae as hobbes was to calvin,.

Isn’t her boy friend Canadian?

This is how creationists think.

I agree DonVanni. They got a belief that they want to impress on others although they can’t prove it.

Leonardeuler, she’s heard of Newton (on gravity). And she’s also used the technique that terrorist org leaders use to recruit homicide-by-suicide bombers–ask someone else to “volunteer”, never do it yourself.

They seemed to have manage to leap across to the other side already, judging by the 4th panel!

fabrulana,

It’s still called the THEORY of evolution, there’s no proof of that yet. And if creationists are wrong, there’s no harm in their believing. But if they’re right…

green_engineer, the constraint of the comic art– Lucy speaks first, so she has to be on the left; therefore Wiley had to draw them from the reverse side. He’s got the trees on the far side of the ravine to provide a clue.

For those of us anal enough to notice these things, and not just accept it a comic ;)

…and now I look at it again, and Lucy is always on the left– so much for that theory. I’ll have to study Danae’s logic a little more before I try again.

sbert003 – a theory in the scientific sense is the highest order. There’s no such thing as a “proven” scientific theory, there are only levels of evidence. The theory of evolution is as true as the theory that the world is round.

Nairebis-the world is round? When did that happen. The part I’m standing on looks pretty flat to me. Just kidding I know it’s not exactly round but it mostly follows that shape as determined by gravity, composition, and spin. Of course being part native American I could believe it is the back of a giant turtle as some of our Mytho’s say.

This sounds EXACTLY like the global warming crowd. They make up the ‘law’ and say the scientific proof against it does not exist! LOLOLOL!

gmartin997 said, about 9 hours ago

The depth and expanse of Danae’s illogic is baffling. Is that horse real or is it imaginary? She’ll make a great politician one day, don’t you think?…. Lucy, the horse is real; Danae is the fantasy.

We shouldn’t try to understand Danae’s logic. Anyone who does try will have their head explode!

find the missing link, show current evidence of ongoing evolution, and figure out how out of a big bang that produces equal amino acids we have a majority of one but not the other.

if matter and life exist then how did it all come into existence…. unless there was no beginning.

I think the having a “beginning” is the one common reference that creation and evolution share.

Complex non living matter appearing out of nothing seems like a jump to me. The much greater complexity of living things coming into existence without help is the much bigger jump.

this is to DonVanni, “this is how creationist think” are you joking this is how atheist and agnostics think, always looking for proof when it is staring them right in the face.

and for you to fabrulana.

If Danae and Lucy want to jump off the cliff and plunge down to ground floor, they better get the parachute for their safety. :-)

when i click the button to see yesterday’s strip and the log in window come up, it would be nice if it took me to yesterdays’s stip after i log in. other than that, “…that’s where you come in…” LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL DANAE MAKES MY DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It depends on what your definition of gravity is.

Evolutionists, like DonVanni and Fabrulana, are EXACTLY like Danae; they think that just by saying that evolution is true and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, that makes it true. Evolutionists ALWAYS talk about the processes involved in evolution in generalities (and if you don’t think about these too much, they seem to make sense). But when you look at the DETAILS of what has to actually happen for these processes to occur, you begin to see how impossible evolution really is.

All that is necessary to deny reality is a religious fantasy that cannot be verified in the real world – Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc

When having such baseless fantasies, it is very important to force them and their ridiculous teachings/proscriptions on others, by force or other undemocratic methods.

prasrinivara got it right in the analysis of this comic - get someone else to take the risk…

@theoldidahofox, it’s interesting that you pick on the three religions that have a historical basis, i.e., that have some claim to an origin within the limits of history. The only other major one I can think of is Bhuddism.

Suspending your belief in the law of gravity is almost as funny as suspending your belief in the second law of thermodynamics! Ha, Ha, Ha!

Lucy’s scientific leap will definately verify something Newton proved 282 years ago.

…………………

To me, the theory of evolution is nothing more than a pretty good idea about how God did it.

One very important part of discussing evolution is the distinction between macro evolution and micro evolution. Micro evolution is a well proven theory that is easily observable. It explains the small changes in a species that take place over long periods of time. An example would be the finches on the Galapagos islands. They have different beaks each suited specifically to eating different types of food during different hardships. Macro evolution is the theory that most creationists take issue with. An example would be the theory that a type of bat eventually deviated enough to become a bird. One common argument for the transitions to species to species is the similarity of the protein Cytochrome C, a chemical common to many organisms. Typically biology text books will show a highly selective example that demonstrates how the similarity of Cytochrome C in humans relates to the Cytochrome C in other animals, with yeast and bacterium being the least similar, and with the Rehsus monkey being the most similar. What this text book example, and many other examples fails to include is the evidence against the theory of macro evolution. Even when it comes to the similarity of the amino acids that compose the protein Cytochrome C, there are far more examples of how the more complex organisms that should be the most similar to humans, aren’t. In many more cases than are often listed, the composition of Cytochrome C in a complex organism is just as similar to the composition of Cytochrome C in a less complex organism, thought to have come far earlier in the evolutionary process.

@Flauta-nobody is debating adaptation. Calling it something fancy (micro evolution) doesn’t make it something different.

@EMET-Well said. As you can tell from my avatar, offending people is not a top concern for me. FYI, you should be careful with the whole monkey comparison thing, you would be suprised how very close some people come when it comes to a visual comparison…

Think she can buck that hard?

Evolution of Theories: Neither people who believe in atheistic evolution, nor those who believe that some superior intelligence designed creation, are necessarily stupid; but some are. There are actually all shades and variations of both evolutionism and creationism, and in the best of them, the two theories are totally compatible. The best scientists and the best theologians have the saving humility to incorporate new knowledge and to let their theories evolve and mutate accordingly. The problem is the people who tend to worship a rigid, unshakable dogma, then shut down their brains. And yes, they are on Both sides of the evolution fence.

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

— Marcus Aurelius

EMET– “And what went up, must come down. Unless it is in outer-darkness where gravity has no effect on the object.”

Actually, gravity has effect, over galactic distances; that’s why there are galaxies, and not a huge expanding cloud of stars.

Good grief.

FYI, for both sides of the line, gravity itself happens to still be a theory. Newton’s old law of gravity is only approximate. Useful for some earthbound calculations and such. But it’s been since replaced otherwise in the science community with the theory of relativity. It hasn’t been proven exactly how and why it works. However, despite it being a theory, that doesn’t mean that you can drop a brick on your foot and expect it to hover!

Coming back at the left, my mother used to say that for every tale there’s a grain of truth. I think even as far as the bible is concerned that tends to work… Jesus did quite likely exist, though most probably only as an ordinary man with an extraordinary vision, and the tale of a global flood has resurfaced in much literature other than the bible and is probably related to the formation of a certain inland sea (of which there’s geological evidence for).

I believe trying to ascertain literal truth from the King James Bible is like trying to get deep meaning from a couple of pages of cliff notes (Remember before you begin flaming, xtians, that the KJB’s old testament is a work translated by men from Hebrew, regardless of the original origins of the words, and even readers of the Torah aren’t 100% sure of some words’ precise meaning) . I’m a believer in science, but nevertheless I believe that the truth is somewhere in between, and that there’s an organizing force to the chaos, which has brought me much derision from both sides. There’s no reason why the two sides can’t meet in the middle.

I don’t think meeting in the middle is a real option, Guntoting.

The one side says, “Evolutionary science is the only real science of origins, because it is the only way to explain things without some supernatural element.”

The other side says, “God has revealed Himself and He says He created the world and the creatures on it in six days of work.”

You say, “The truth is somewhere in the middle.” (Are you Hegel?) But if, as you assert, the revelation is untrustworthy - then we know nothing about God or His role. And on the other hand, if it is obvious to most people that there must be “an organizing force to the chaos” then you don’t believe in the authority of naturalistic science either.

By the way, there are very few words in the Hebrew Bible that are in doubt as to their origin and meaning. As with every language, word meaning is generally decided by context.

Furthermore, it is only doublespeak to say, “Jesus did quite likely exist, though most probably only as an ordinary man with an extraordinary vision.” What would be your authority for asserting this? It can only be held as a presupposition that dismisses all evidence.

His life is well documented - better than any other ancient person - in thousands of manuscripts. If you reject the documentation because of your commitment to naturalism, then you have nothing to suggest anything about him.

If he was not what the documentary evidence suggests, then he either a lying charlatan, a madman, or just a pathetic loser who died on a Roman cross.

What kind of “extraordinary vision” is it to teach that life in this world is unimportant compared to having God’s forgiveness and eternal life after death - if he had no power to deliver people from sin and death? Was he a shill for the Roman government - sent to tell people that being oppressed shouldn’t bother them because they could have a better life in heaven?

No, I don’t think there is any middle on which to meet that doesn’t completely compromise the principles that each side stands for. Everything in the middle is silly inconsistency.

The beauty of this strip is that evolutionists can think that this is applying to creationists and creationist can believe that this is applying to evolutionists because bias is still involved.

I’ve always found it interesting that the creationists take upon themselves the authority to claim that the Creator could not have used a particular tool–especially when we have documented cases of that tool at work.

“An example would be the theory that a type of bat eventually deviated enough to become a bird.”

Not really. You can’t jump branches. You can’t ask for a bat to become a bird, a dog to become a cat, or a horse to become a fish. It doesn’t work that way. In order to find evidence of so-called “macroevolution”, you have to nail down just what creationists mean by “kind”. They can’t do it.

You point to the Eohippus and they’ll call it a horse. Except it’s not. Eohippus is a totally different kind of animal. It’s the ancestor of the horse, but it’s not a horse. Eohippus is an animal that proves “macroevolution” but no matter how many of these animals you bring up, they move the goalposts until they’ve distorted “evolution” to a point where they want it to claim something it never has and never will.

They set up a strawman and then point to it to “prove evolution is wrong”.

Kind of sad, really.

My theory (npi) is that science is as much faith based as is religion. I say this as one who was a sci-math major in college, back when bears and indians roamed the plains, and have seen them as a life-long fascination, even passion. Math rests on a few fundamental assumptions, differing sometimes according to which subset of math you want. Science really does the same. A hypothesis, repeatedly tested, becomes a theory, we’re 99% sure, then 99.9%, 99.99, then one day it becomes a “law” – 99.9999999%. Never 100%. Remember – there is a state of matter (I forget the name) which exists at near absolute zero that can defy gravity. I’m not talking about quantum level stuff. This is something you can actually see. I’ve seen films. It crawls right up the side of the beaker by the spoonful. Relativity is still called a theory. When will it be passed into law as was gravity? Certainly some day.

Cheers

PS: I think Danae is right more often than wrong. Logic is woefully overrated. A brilliant and savagely funny demonstration of this is Sheldon on “The Big Bang Theory”. Rain Man as a logic savant instead of a math savant.

primacyofreason posted:

“Live a good life. If there are gods … . If there are no gods … — Marcus Aurelius”

I was glad to see this. I came up with something similar on my own. If you’re a Christian or Muslim, you’ll want to live a good life to get into heaven or paradise. If you’re a Jew, you have a God but as Marcus Aurelius said you’ll want your good life to be remembered by all. If you’re a Hindu, you’ll want your good life to help you have a better next one. If you’re a Buddhist, well, he never said anything that I’ve ever heard of about a Supreme Being, but you’ll want to live a good life to follow the eightfold path, and minimize your suffering.

AFA atheists, I dunno. You guys are on your own to figure out a reason. Stayin’ out of jail, I guess. Keepin’ in your mama’s good graces.

Why am I not surprised to see Marcus Aurelius pop up in a blog on Non Sequitur?

——

The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true. – James Branch Cabell

nonsequitous: Yes. We know that. However, there are people that say evolution is wrong or doesn’t exist, so we’re looking for their explanation as to why complexity, for example, gets less complex the earlier you go in time. Or, their explanation why there are no horses, for example, 100 million years ago. If “kinds” don’t turn into other “kinds”, then where did horses come from? Did they pop into existence after their “ancestors” died?

“AFA atheists, I dunno. You guys are on your own to figure out a reason [for being moral]. Stayin’ out of jail, I guess. Keepin’ in your mama’s good graces.”

I think that this is a backwards way of looking at things. Morality is not dependent upon religion. In fact, it is my belief that religion was born from a need to explain morality that exists in almost all* human beings (aka: “Humanity”.) For atheists like me, we live a moral life because it’s the “right” thing to do, not because some deity tells us to act a certain way.

How do we know what’s “right”? How do religious people know they’re right? What if their deity is wrong? They can’t explain and neither can I. It isn’t religion. It’s humanity that religion attempts to explain.

Sheesh, I thought Danae was referring to global warming science. Guess I was mistaken..

danielsangeo: “For atheists like me, we live a moral life because it’s the “right” thing to do, not because some deity tells us to act a certain way. How do we know what’s “right”? How do religious people know they’re right? What if their deity is wrong? They can’t explain and neither can I.”

I’m glad some athiests such as yourself follow much the same precepts as some religious people – e.g., don’t kill, steal, lie, mess with your neighbor’s spouse, etc. I think those are common to most religious teachings, in fact most moral systems. “Do unto others” is not a Christian value, just common sense.

“It’s humanity that religion attempts to explain.”

Voltaire (my man!) once said “If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him.” Putting your atheism together with your statement above, you seem to be saying that, through religion, humanity is attempting to explain itself. Many wise and religious people know this. (Not that I call myself wise, but I’ve known it a long time, and I’m neither an atheist nor an agnostic, although I shun name-labels for whatever is responsible for these creations we call a universe and our minds. I’m more a mystic than religious, not belonging to any organized group of believers, or following any creed except my own Heinz 57.)

So really, as an atheist, don’t you have to admit that it’s past generations of wise men telling us, through holy books, what’s the “right” thing to do?

“They can’t explain and neither can I.”

C’mon. You said yourself that you follow:

Rule 1: do the right thing Rule 2: see rule 1

There’s no need for explanation. It comes from the heart, not some deity or holy books or logic.

“Do unto others…” The heart knows this.

Thanks for the thoughtful and heartening reply.

—–

What did the Zen master say to the hot dog vendor? Make me one with everything.

“So really, as an atheist, don’t you have to admit that it’s past generations of wise men telling us, through holy books, what’s the “right” thing to do?”

Thank you for your reply (and your notification of said reply!).

Yes, I do admit that. However, as an atheist, I don’t believe in the supernatural elements of the holy books of yesteryear and today. I think of the Bible, for example, as an historical science fiction book. Like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, the Bible has a message – a message that exists in every single story since the dawn of man: “Do unto others.”

It doesn’t matter if someone gets their messages from a burning bush or from glowing blue ghosts. It’s the message that counts – not the method of delivering said message. Too often, however, there are fans of said stories who become rabid, and go beyond simple love of the story and message, and begin to kill people over it by flying planes into buildings or going into museums to kill people for no other reason than they disagree over whether Han Solo shot Greedo first.

And that is truly sickening.