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.”
What you don't seem to see is that, "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."
I just posted this to you in the post you responded to and you seem to have ignored it. How?