The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It's so utterly ridiculous That I'm fairly sure he's trolling here.

[Ravenshire]

I'm sure you don't. Have you even read it that fucking book?

Source

I guess you forget to realize Leviticus was written in HEBREW, which the word translated from Hebrew simply means flying creatures, the short translation is fowl, in the KJV
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5775.htm

oph: flying creatures
Original Word: עוֹף
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: oph
Phonetic Spelling: (ofe)
Short Definition: birds

The passage as it is translated word-for-word from hebrew
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInter.../lev11.pdf

and·»these you-shall-abominate from-the·flyer not they-shall-be-eaten abomination they the·vulture and·» the·lammergeier and·» the·eagle

So, I suppose you're going to tell me that they got the definition wrong about birds, but got it right in Leviticus 11:20 when they translated the same fucking word (correctly) as insects?
“‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you."

Or, maybe, your ancient writers simply didn't know what the fuck they were talking about.

Four legged insects.

You still haven't addressed your misuse of the word theory. Or are you just hoping to throw up a smoke screen?

[JesusHChrist]

It's so utterly ridiculous That I'm fairly sure he's trolling here.

Define "ridiculous" and "trolling" in this context. Also define "here" and "context" and "and" while you are at it.

If you can't, I WIN WIN WIN.

[SteelCurtain]

Aeronautics is a fact, but we don't use theory to explain how an airplane flies.

We sure as fuck do.

The Theory of Gravity is heavily used in the explanation of lift. I dare you to derive Bernoulli's principle without the theory of gravity. I double dog dare you to derive the Navier-Stokes equation without gravitational theory. I defy you to describe the physical characteristics of a laminar boundary layer without Chaos theory.

[Huggy Bear]

Hold up, are you stating that aeronautics and aerodynamics are the same thing?

I'm stating, as I stated in the very post that you quoted, that aeronautics is a field of study that comprises multiple theories, one of them being aerodynamics. It's an umbrella term fostered by our understanding of numerous theories, and so you're wrong when you say that aeronautics isn't explained by theory. You're actually as wrong as you could possibly be, given the bounds of that statement.

Oh, but that's not the simple yes/no strawman answer you wanted, is it? Sorry to deprive you of another dishonest "aha!" moment.

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.

The Cope's Gray Treefrog exists in the same habitat as the regular kind, and has little in the way of physiological differences to it. That said, genetic study shows that it is a completely different species, featuring a genetic setup not found in the regular Gray Treefrog, that does not interbreed in any way. They did, however, diverge from the Gray Treefrog line in a relatively short period of time, due to a genetic phenomenon called autopolyploidy. Therefore, it is one species, spawning from another, as per the definition of species that you provided; mind you, that's not at all what evolution actually describes- a point you actually excised from my post when you quoted it, presumably to avoid taking responsibility for your own lack of care in the discussion- but the Gray Treefrog is something of a unique case that shows that, even fighting on your own factually inaccurate grounds, you're as wrong as ever.

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.

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.

[Esquilax]

It's so utterly ridiculous That I'm fairly sure he's trolling here.

Define "ridiculous" and "trolling" in this context. Also define "here" and "context" and "and" while you are at it.

If you can't, I WIN WIN WIN.

And remember, only yes or no answers will be accepted!

[Huggy Bear]

Aeronautics is a fact, but we don't use theory to explain how an airplane flies.

We sure as fuck do.

The Theory of Gravity is heavily used in the explanation of lift. I dare you to derive Bernoulli's principle without the theory of gravity. I double dog dare you to derive the Navier-Stokes equation without gravitational theory. I defy you to describe the physical characteristics of a laminar boundary layer without Chaos theory.

You realize rockets fall under "aeronautics" don't you?
Building aircraft isn't "theory"..... all you need is a basic understanding.

---

You still haven't addressed your misuse of the word theory. Or are you just hoping to throw up a smoke screen?

where did I misuse the word?

[SteelCurtain]

We sure as fuck do.

The Theory of Gravity is heavily used in the explanation of lift. I dare you to derive Bernoulli's principle without the theory of gravity. I double dog dare you to derive the Navier-Stokes equation without gravitational theory. I defy you to describe the physical characteristics of a laminar boundary layer without Chaos theory.

You realize rockets fall under "aeronautics" don't you?

I do. I learned it when I got my degree in Aeronautical Engineering.

Rockets are further a specialty field called Aerospace Engineering.

Any particular reason you decided to point this out?

---

Building aircraft isn't "theory"..... all you need is a basic understanding.

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.

[Esquilax]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Norman Humann]

Pearls before swine, Esq. Huggy only responds to yes or no answers.