How many times would like a 10# brick released from 20 feet above your head? If you doubt the expected result, you would have no reason to move, would you?
I have an interesting question for you. Why do evolutionists claim that the 'theory of evolution' is just as valid as the 'theory of gravity'? Seems to me that it would be impossible for both of them to enjoy the same level of credibility; wouldn't it?
If evolution was as valid at the law of gravity, there would be no reason to compare the two. They don't really have anything in common. Only only possible reason why evolutionists compare the two is to mislead those who aren't all that bright into thinking that evolution is just as valid as gravity. The fact is, evolution cannot stand on its own apart from using some accepted scientific fact to lend evolution credibility.
This reminds me of an old saying, "the only purpose served by economic forecasting is to lend credibility to astrology.
Usually, it's for the purpose of distinguishing facts, theories, laws, etc, by using a familiar example. See post 139
Actually, ToE is much better supported than General Relativity (the theory of gravity)
GR can't work with quantum theory at subatomic scales. At very large scales, either there's a problem with it, or there is a mysterious "dark matter" that accounts for 90% of the mass of the Universe.
ToE on the other hand, has withstood every test. It has made predictions which were later found to be true.
There is nothing like the "dark matter" problem for evolution theory. The real question is why do physicists insist that GR is as sound as ToE.