Clever. However, there is a different between proving a negative and supporting a positive.
Try providing support for "every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force directed along the line connecting the two". Get back to me when you can support the every part of Newton's law using your criteria.
If I measure the force between 1 pair of massive bodies and discover that it follows Newton's law, I have a single instance of support. If I measure the force between 10 pairs of massive bodies, and the results conform to Newton's law, I have 10 more supporting data points. Every time I measure the force between a pair of bodies, I will EITHER increase the evidence in support of Newton, OR I will invalidate Newton's law. With each confirming result (assuming no instances of falsification), I increase the level of support. This is different from proof.
It should be noted, that Newton's law is a scientific law that, like Ampere's Law, describes an observed regularity. Like Ampere's Law, under certain conditions it will fail.
"there is a different between proving a negative and supporting a positive."
I have already demonstrated that my assertion can be expressed either way: "Intelligence is THE mechanism by which life is assembled from lifeless matter". Happy?
"Every time I measure the force between a pair of bodies, I will EITHER increase the evidence in support of Newton, OR I will invalidate Newton's law. With each confirming result (assuming no instances of falsification), I increase the level of support. This is different from proof."
Well, duh. That is PRECISELY what I have been saying all along about my assertion. It is supportable the same way. Unlike the law of gravity we do not have any instances of life being assembled so as to either support my assertion or falsify it. Any such instances in the future, if and when they occur, will serve to either support my assertion or falsify it. Do you get it yet?
By the standard which you demand my assertion to be validated, you are unable to validate Newton's law. You would have to test every instance of gravity operating in order to do so. You are tacitly admitting this is not necessary for Newton. Why do you demand that it is necessary for my assertion?