The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[SteelCurtain]

It's an utterly idiotic argument the moment you actually stop to think about it, but word games and equivocations are par for the course with you, I'm afraid.

It is entirely predictable, too. As soon as he says something like "there aren't any theories in aeronautics" and then 10 people fire back about all the theories that are involved in aeronautics---the next post from Huggy will undoubtedly be an equivocation like "you know rockets are involved in aeronautics, right?"

I have no idea where he plans on going with that, but it will be comical, I bet.

[Ravenshire]

where did I misuse the word?

Every fucking time you use the phrase "it's just a theory." We all know that is a euphemism for "They're just guessing" and that's just fucking wrong.

[Huggy Bear]

where did I misuse the word?

Every fucking time you use the phrase "it's just a theory." We all know that is a euphemism for "They're just guessing" and that's just fucking wrong.

I think you're mistaken, FAF is the first one to use the word theory.

You don't get to input your own incoherent definitions and then still pretend that you're talking about the actual theory of evolution.

At least you acknowledge it as a theory.

Now if you have something specific I said, then link it.

---

Lol. Boeing sure has a fucked up business model. They spend billions of dollars on research and development, when all they need is a basic understanding. You should tell them, Huggy. @Boeing on Twitter. Let 'em know how your basic understanding of airplanes can help them design the next passenger aircraft.

Yes and millions are spent on automobile research and development, but you can still build a car with basic knowledge...

[Ravenshire]

Every fucking time you use the phrase "it's just a theory." We all know that is a euphemism for "They're just guessing" and that's just fucking wrong.

I think you're mistaken, FAF is the first one to use the word theory.

At least you acknowledge it as a theory.

Now if you have something specific I said, then link it.

Please don't try to insult my intelligence that the above was anything other than an attempt to drag the term theory down to the "it's just a theory" level of wild assed guessing. It's more than evident from your context.

[abaris]

Yes and millions are spent on automobile research and development, but you can still build a car with basic knowledge...

So go out and build one with basic knowledge. You might just turn out to be a serious competitor for the next Darwin Awards if you actually try to drive the product of your efforts.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The word "species" has been around since the 14th century, whether or not science regards that as the definition is irrelevant. Scientists don't get carte blanche to redefine a word.

They didn't "redefine" it; they added a scientific denotation to the existing definition, and yes, they are perfectly capable of doing that. I know it must give you diaper rash to find yet another fact that you cannot brush aside ... dumbfuck.

[Esquilax]

I think you're mistaken, FAF is the first one to use the word theory.

At least you acknowledge it as a theory.

Now if you have something specific I said, then link it.

So what if FAF was the first person to use the word? He was using it correctly, whereas you immediately turned around and tried to denigrate evolution because it is a theory, meaning you were using it incorrectly. I know that admitting you're wrong on any point might actually be physically impossible for you, but this sort of irrelevant distraction tactic is simply vapid.

[SteelCurtain]

Lol. Boeing sure has a fucked up business model. They spend billions of dollars on research and development, when all they need is a basic understanding. You should tell them, Huggy. @Boeing on Twitter. Let 'em know how your basic understanding of airplanes can help them design the next passenger aircraft.

Yes and millions are spent on automobile research and development, but you can still build a car with basic knowledge...

Well shit. It's such a shame all those engineers spend so many years studying when all they need is basic knowledge.

And all that money going to R&D. Complete and utter waste. Don't need R&D when all the knowledge to build a car is already there. You learn it in 10th grade shop class.

You should build your own plane with your basic knowledge (All you need is more lift than gravity and more thrust than drag!) and post the video to prove us all wrong! Don't worry about stability and control theories, as long as the plane flies it's not important whether it does a nose dive without input or departs immediately. Don't worry about when/where you want to trip the turbulent boundary layer. You've already figured it out with brute force with your more thrust than drag knowledge! Don't worry about which NACA airfoil you should use. You'd need to use Navier-Stokes to find out how much lift is created over iterative portions of the wing. So that's out because it uses gravitation. Theories be damned! We can do this without them! Don't worry about power transmission. Again, we've figured this out with our more thrust than drag knowledge. Control surfaces? I say yes! Where? Somewhere! How do we counter torque moments? With anti-torquers! How do we make sure our plane will fly? Put it in a wind tunnel, and if it doesn't explode, wa la! Plane.

[Thumpalumpacus]

examples of speciation do not count because the definition of species means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species

species
2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

meaning "speciation" is just a genetic variation of the same species, that are isolated from breeding with each other.
Developing a new breed of Dog for example is "speciation" by definition.

Wrong again. Speciation has a different meaning than "species" ... probably because they're, you know, two different words.

Argument by definition fails when you choose the wrong definition.

You're new to this, aren't you?

[Ravenshire]

Yes and millions are spent on automobile research and development, but you can still build a car with basic knowledge...

Well shit. It's such a shame all those engineers spend so many years studying when all they need is basic knowledge.

And all that money going to R&D. Complete and utter waste. Don't need R&D when all the knowledge to build a car is already there. You learn it in 10th grade shop class.

You should build your own plane with your basic knowledge (All you need is more lift than gravity and more thrust than drag!) and post the video to prove us all wrong! Don't worry about stability and control theories, as long as the plane flies it's not important whether it does a nose dive without input or departs immediately. Don't worry about when/where you want to trip the turbulent boundary layer. You've already figured it out with brute force with your more thrust than drag knowledge! Don't worry about which NACA airfoil you should use. You'd need to use Navier-Stokes to find out how much lift is created over iterative portions of the wing. So that's out because it uses gravitation. Theories be damned! We can do this without them! Don't worry about power transmission. Again, we've figured this out with our more thrust than drag knowledge. Control surfaces? I say yes! Where? Somewhere! How do we counter torque moments? With anti-torquers! How do we make sure our plane will fly? Put it in a wind tunnel, and if it doesn't explode, wa la! Plane.

Come now, Steel. Hasn't Huggies convinced you yet that theories are just wild assed guesses. Surely all that R&D is actually just smoke and mirrors to drive prices up!