[Rachumlakenschlaff]

I never said that experiments prove theories.

Correct. You said that was how evolutionists view science.

Because your model adequately explains the motion of the 5 observed balls and, because you have 5 new observations of 5 other balls that fell from other heights whose motions also fit your model, you claim that your model (what you call a theory) is proved.

Huh?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Huh? Placemarker.

[Condorman]

Twice in the last 50 posts you have written how evolutionists like to claim their theory is proven. After the first time you agreed that theories are not proven, only to repeat your error a few posts later. A reconciliation of the two positions, or even some supporting evidence would be nice.

You have also claimed that experimentation is necessary for a theory, but that predictions are not, and have persistently refused to recognize (or failed to understand, I'm not sure which) that experiments are designed to isolate specific conditions for the purpose of more precise observations.

In short, you're off to a rather poor start...