I think you misunderstand the definition of "replica."
Real Science Radio: The Search for Noah's Ark
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Lordkalvan
New member
Well, I was going on this definition from Merriam-Webster:
'1: an exact reproduction (as of a painting) executed by the original artist <a replica of this was painted … this year — Constance Strachey>
'2: a copy exact in all details <DNA makes a replica of itself> <sailed a replica of the Viking ship>; broadly : copy <this faithful, pathetic replica of a Midwestern suburb — G. F. Kennan>'
Clearly 'Johan's Ark' meets none of the relevant criteria for a replica of the legendary biblical Ark.
So a scale model isn't a replica?
Lordkalvan
New member
I provided you the definition I was informing my understanding with. By this definition, what do you think?
But let's say yes, a scale model is a replica. 'Johan's Ark' still isn't a replica of the biblical Ark: it's a work of imagination that had to be built on a steel barge and on a steel frame, presumably because otherwise it would neither float nor be structurally sound.
Lordkalvan
New member
Apparently, according to his reputation comment, LH doesn't think this is an honest post. I am curious as to the grounds on which he regards it as dishonest. Because I view 'Johan's Ark' as a piece of entertaining silliness as opposed to an exercise in biblical validation?
It's dishonest because you are splitting hairs over the use of the word 'replica' and ignoring the fact that by definition it still counts. There is a reason "exact replica" is a phrase in the lexicon. That reason is that 'replica' does not mean 'exact copy.'
gcthomas
New member
'Exact replica' comes in the same category as 'totally unique'. They both use two words when one is superfluous.
Have you got a dictionary reference to support your assertion as to the meaning of e word 'replica'? All those I have found get to exact copies.
Lordkalvan
New member
Nope, I'm using the dictionary definition of the word. Nothing dishonest about that.
Which definition? Yours? That would be the Humpty-Dumpty definition whereby a word means whatever you want it to mean?
A replica is an exact copy, by definition. 'Exact replica' is therefore tautological, no matter how often it is (incorrectly) used thus. Like 'habitual custom' or 'close proximity'.
Lordkalvan
New member
Whereas YECs prefer disingenuousness and evasiveness.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/replica?s=t
Yup.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/replica?s=t
According to that it can also mean "close copy."
This is seen in cultural understanding when miniatures are referred to as replicas.
gcthomas
New member
Doesn't include 'superficially similar' copy then?
Evidence, actually. But evolutionists react to that like a vampire to sunlight.
gcthomas
New member
If only you ever presented scientific evidence. :think:
(Scientific mind, not your mutant, YEC anti-science version.) :chuckle:
I tend to stick to facts. You know, like: The world is covered in water deposited sediment.
English is your second language, right? :chuckle:
gcthomas
New member
You seem to be well practised in the art of changing meanings by partial quoting of a small part of one long sentence.
That skill must be useful to help squeeze a parody of science into a YEC straight-jacket, mustn't it?
Lordkalvan
New member
'Close' in what sense?
Let's grant this for the sake of argument (however, popular usage =/= invariably correct, as in 'different than' as opposed to the grammatically correct 'different from', or 'your' when 'you're' is meant, or 'should of' instead of 'should have'). 'Johan's Ark' still fails your definition of a replica.
Lordkalvan
New member
Sure you do, in the sense of all speculations in support of creationism are evidential...
...while all evidence in support of evolution is speculative, of course. What a topsy-turvy world of NewSpeak you live in.