My interloctor made a statement about "universal gravity", not pragmatic local gravity.
Well, that 'pragmatic local gravity' (never heard it called that!) is a pretty essential part of the theory of gravity itself. Take that part away and it is just nonsense. So my point is that there are certain universal laws which cannot be denied and are indeed provable. Gravity is a fact of life, has never been disproven, and is easilly ascertainable. The 'fact' of evolution though is nowhere to be found.
Really? Than expand on it to explain the theory of gravity's conspicuous failure to describe the outer orbits of stars around galaxies.
Take that part away and it is just nonsense. So my point is that there are certain universal laws which cannot be denied and are indeed provable. Gravity is a fact of life, has never been disproven, and is easilly ascertainable. The 'fact' of evolution though is nowhere to be found.
What proof can you offer that the law of gravity is operating in the vacuum of intergalactic outer space? Explain how your proof differs from the proof that morphological continuity between species in different layers of dirt implies a continuum of evolution through the creatures we don't find in the dirt? How is this different from the continuum of gravity in intergalactic vacuum?
For that matter, where is your deductive proof that local gravity is good for all time? Why are there pictures of astronauts floating around in freefall? Why do billions of pounds of insect and plant detritus float off into space at the top of our air curculation system? I thought you said you had proof of local gravity. Your proof is just like the proof that the earth is flat. Millions of people went out and looked, and, indeed, the earth SEEMED flat. Just like millions of people jumped off cliffs, or fell off chairs, and fell down, and invented the theory of gravity to explain it. Observed repeated events are only proof until the day they fail, either because of changing conditions, or more exacting tasks or instruments of observation.
All you have is high confidence in gravity, due to repeated observation and the highly fallable principle of induction. If you had proof, you would have published it the first time I asked to see it, years ago.