[Junior]

You're picking at nits.

Not really. There are light years of difference between the two statements. That OJ whacked his wife is a theory supported by the evidence. Whether he whacked his wife or not is not an established fact

[f.Christian]

You missed the civil trial---evidence!

Even the original evidence and trial for normal people was conclusive---certain!

[RobRoy]

Technically you are correct, as in "an airplane is supported by airflow, but an airplane is not airflow."

That said, I still say we are playing with semantics. The reason is that the only way the statement "evolution is facts" makes sense at all is to interpret it to mean that evolution is supported by facts, which is, in fact, what was originally said.

I rack it up to sloppy paraphrasing. Still, not a hanging offense and not really worth much discussion, unless it becomes chronic.

There is quite frankly enough of that stuff going on on both sides. I tend to ignore it unless it actually twists the meaning of phrases. This one did not - at least not to me. I interpreted it to mean exactly what the first poster actually posted. 'Course, that's just me. I'm more interested in confronting and responding to the actual points made by posters than nit pic their spelling, etc.

I'll tell you what, if gore3000 is confronted with this and still say's what he said is exactly what he meant, I'll change my tune.