Evolutionary Tree

[Mister Agenda]

When you use the same word with multiple meanings in the same sentence without making your meaning-switching explicit, you are equivocating and it's a form of lying when you do it deliberately and understand that it causes confusion. Since you complain about every third atheist complaining about this, you're aware. That just makes you a persistent liar.

Evolution is a fact. Gravity is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory. The theory of gravity is a theory.

You don't have to be this stupid, it's a choice.

I thought what he meant was fairly clear from the context.  

Now if one is making that argument that in science; evolution is only a theory (in regards to scientific classification), and therefore without evidence.  This would be equivocation.  However on the other end, when someone claims that evolution is a fact (or classified as a scientific theory), I normally ask them to define what they mean by evolution.  One can equally equivocate everything under the umbrella of term "evolution" to deceptively equate fact under one meaning, with another meaning.  

One might also take issue with equating the word's theory with fact, if that is your intention.

Funny, other people don't have a problem not using the word in different ways in the same sentence. It's easy if you have the slightest care about not being ambiguous.

By this time you should understand the difference between 'evolution the fact' and 'evolution the theory'. Do you get this confused over 'gravity the fact' and 'gravity the theory'?

No one is getting 'fact' and 'theory' confused but the people with a stake in confusing them. No one, and I mean no one, on this thread is equivocating 'evolution is a fact' as 'the theory of evolution is a fact' except you and Steve. I wonder why that is?