Evolutionary Tree

[RoadRunner79]

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.

I would say that ambiguous would be more accurate than equivocating. But I still think the context was fairly clear.

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?

Ok.... I thought put a qualifier in there... perhaps you have a difficulty with ambiquity