One disputes -- not facts -- but explanations of facts. Truly you do not know science. So live by your convictions.
Only Orwellian doublespeak could change those explanations for you. I prefer what scientists have to say about it.
CV is right here, and there is nothing "Orwellian" about distinguishing theory from so-called "fact." Theory does not "become fact" when we believe it is consistent with empirical sense impressions.
Using evolution as an example, it is simply an oxymoron to claim, as someone just did, "the theory of evolution is a fact."
If you want to call the hypothesis that life forms change over time "evolution," then, sure, everything we know would indicate that this is the case (a "fact"). But any given *theory* of evolution, such as the modern synthethic (neo-darwinistic) theory, cannot be a "fact." It is, and will always remain, a theory.
The confusion of ontology with epistemology and the tendency of some (such as Fresky, the abject solipsist) to equate interpretation with "reality" (so-called "fact') underlies most disputes of the kind being presented in this thread.
It is a common indulgence for people to insist that their shallow understanding of the issues involved is "what the scientists say," as Ed did here. In that sense, "science" can be fundamentally subjective, and it is this type of conceit that Fresky tries to exploit when advocating his ridiculous conclusions.