you don't believe scientific facts are subject to change? Of course they are! Stephen Fry mentioned on QI the other week that something like 20% of scientific facts are discarded per decade. It's got a technical term, "factual slippage" or something. Some facts (4.5 billion years as age of the earth) are obviously more vulnerable than others (roughly spherical) to "slippage", but nothing is entirely, 100%, absolutely, positively, immune to revision. That's the point. To preach otherwise is indoctrination.
That's just semantics over the definition of the word "facts".
Scientific theories are revised based on the currently known facts and some assumptions to fill the missing facts we don't yet have or can't get. We check that theories fit other know facts and that helps us know which ones are likely to be correct or not.
The facts don't change unless some measurement is found to be defective or a better one comes along (in which case the facts are better described as being refined).
It all depends on how things are communicated too. It would be wrong to interpret "the earth is 4.5 billion years old" as meaning "to the day". But it's a fact that the earth is more likely in the 4.5 billion year age range vs 6,000 years based on all the evidence (the facts) available through the filter of current theory and knowledge.
If further learning and discovery shows us that 5 billion is a better number I hardly think we've abandoned a fact.
Also, the earth is flat. I have a picture of it in a book by a guy called Atlas. It is as flat as a piece of paper and also has am underwater canyon that spells out "copyright" somewhere in the south china seas.