"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?
A) Exclusivity cannot be supported only falsified. (post 3238
B) Any such instances in the future, if and when they occur, will serve to either support my assertion or falsify it. (post 3240)
Do you get it yet?
You can't really be this dense. Using the (meaningless) reconfiguration of your assertion, "Intelligence is THE mechanism by which life is assembled from lifeless matter," assume we observe an instance of intelligence assembling life. How does that lend support?
Going back in the thread, I posit that electrolysis of water is the only way to produce O2 gas. I set up an electrolysis rig and produce O2. What have I learned?
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.
Confirmation is different than proof. Validation for a single instance is not generalizable over a wide class of observations.
You are tacitly admitting this is not necessary for Newton. Why do you demand that it is necessary for my assertion?
Um, because a law is different that a hypothesis? Because Newton's Law has a wide population of observations from which to draw conclusions?