My original point was that the post I addressed saying:
Some creationist arguments are very difficult to debunk or refute, others are not. The "evolution is a theory" argument is the most easily refuted because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. It's like saying to a mathematican that a triangle has four points.
Is a purely semantic argument and in another reply to me you seemed to agree. The argument by those opposed to evolution when they say that evolution is only a theory is basically that it is not scientifically verified. Perhaps they should say that evolution is not a theory but a hypothesis and a false one at that. However, since your reply was by your own admission a semantic one, it does not address the point ml/nj was trying to bring out and which those opposed to evolution constantly make - the lack of scientific evidence supporting evolution. It is thus a sidestepping of the point and in a sense nit-picking.