When OP said that we are not 'real' engineers because we have not built a bridge is when I stopped reading. For how could anyone take him seriously after that?

'Real' engineers are not judged by whether or not they can build a bridge as if it's some rite of passage to being a real engineer. That's ridiculous on the face of it.

That he used this example as some kind of proof to justify his argument is where he lost me.