The fallacy of affirming the consequent is structured as: P predicts Q, Q is observed; therefore P is conclusively proven.
Words mean things."
Indeed they do.
Not only is P not conclusively proven by the fallacy of affirming the consequent, but P is not supported by the use of the fallacy either. Formal fallacies of this form are always fallacies because the conclusion is a non sequitur.
Trying to narrow the focus of the conclusion such that you think you can apply the fallacious logic without committing the error of the fallacy is simply amazing. It is fascinating to watch the lengths that evos will go through to cling to their fallacious logic.
What you don’t seem to see,is my use of saying “The fallacy of affirming the consequent is structured as: P predicts Q, Q is observed; therefore P is conclusively proven.” to make a point regarding your misuse of the word “support.”
To wit ... There is no fallacy in saying: “When P predicts Q and Q is observed, then P is supported.”