(March 17, 2015 at 4:48 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Except you are wrong, If anything, aeronautics falls under the umbrella of aerodynamics since aeronautics evolved from the study of aerodynamics.
So, are you gonna quibble over wording, or are you gonna address the actual... oh, who am I kidding. You only ever quibble over wording.
Quote:Actually you're wrong.
Aerodynamics falls under the umbrella of physics. Drag (not theoretical) is really the only Thing about aerodynamics aeronautics is concerned about, and that can be moot with enough thrust.
Did you read my link at all? Because it uses the word "theory" twelve times, and the majority of those are references to theories that apply to aeronautics, like "potential flow theory," or "boundary layer flow theory," or "two-dimensional wing theory." It also calls aerodynamics a theory at least three times. Good to know you're incapable of reading the things you disagree on.
But this whole discussion is stupid anyway, because even if you were right about the word theory, you'd be wrong about the content of the subjects you're discussing. Scientific theories are different things to the colloquial use of the word, but even if they weren't, that doesn't suddenly mean that the things that are called theories in scientific parlance lose all their evidence and become colloquial theories. It just means that we shouldn't call them theories.
What this is like, is if I called someone I knew a cat- you know, in the colloquial "slick cat," sense- and you came along and say that the literal definition of a cat is a furry quadrupedal animal, and then concluded that because that definition exists, my friend stops being human and becomes a literal cat. 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.
Quote:Quote: As far as is known, no hybrids exist between the two species, intermixing being reduced through heightened species recognition facilitated by call variance.
Not a word about it being impossible for them to intermix, I want to know if you forced them to mate in a lab, would they produce young.
I knew you would go here, and it's just so lovely, because now you're contradicting yourself. Before, when you thought it would suit your argument, observation was just so important and necessary to know things. Now, when it suits you, a lack of observation is no barrier at all to disagreeing with something we have observed. The level of evidence required is really just whatever you need it to be at the time, isn't it?
Of course, this is all irrelevant to the larger point, that you seem desperate to avoid, which is that what you pretend evolution to be is not what evolution is. You're not talking about evolution when you ask for this, and just ignoring this fact will not make it go away, but it will have the happy effect of making you look totally incompetent.
Quote:polar bears and brown bears are also considered different species because it was thought that they do not interbreed in the wild, except there are two known cases of a polar/brown bear hybrid in the wild.
That's because there's more than one way to define a species, which is another thing you're equivocating on. Lions and tigers can breed hybrids too, are you now claiming that lions and tigers are the exact same species?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!