You confuse the issue.

You stated: "I believe it's very important to maintain a clear distinction between what is fact and what is hypothesis in science."

The distinction would be between 'hypothesis' and 'law'. Facts are neither (Diablo iii Gold).

And, on the 'hypothesis to law continuum', 'theory' would be in-between. 'Theory' would still be subject to change, given conflicting data, but it is much more than a 'hypothesis'. As I read it, you seem to equate hypothesis with 'prediction' or 'guess' or 'informed guess'.

So, 'I believe the Sun will still be shining tomorrow' is more than a guess - more than a prediction/hypothesis (Diablo iii Gold). It is the result of a vast amount of theoretical knowledge on how stars work. And given that hydrogen bombs work, it is fairly well tested knowledge.

Just so with byslexic-Dog's statement. We are quite sure that, unless other things come into play, current understanding is that at some point, the Earth itself will be consumed as the Sun grows old, and thus, life on Earth will cease.