|
Post by Come on on Jul 11, 2007 20:34:03 GMT -5
english is a corruptible language and thus the meanings of words seem to change with time, .....but the name of our ''world'' has remained the same as it always was, although I would be interested in knowing more about the original language. earth is still the name of the world we live in , do you know that the ''(ear)th'' is designed to hear and respond to ''natures'' ''voice'' ? earth O.E. eorðe "ground, soil, dry land," also used (along with middangeard) for "the (material) world" (as opposed to the heavens or the underworld), from P.Gmc. *ertho (cf. O.N. jörð, M.Du. eerde, O.H.G. erda, Goth. airþa), from PIE base *er-. The earth considered as a planet was so called from c.1400. Earthy in the fig. sense of "coarse, unrefined" is from 1594. Earthworm first attested 1591. Earthwork is from 1633. Earthlight apparently coined 1833 by British astronomer John Herschel. Do you have another source that ties earth and ear?
|
|
|
Post by to come on on Jul 13, 2007 9:40:07 GMT -5
english is a corruptible language and thus the meanings of words seem to change with time, .....but the name of our ''world'' has remained the same as it always was, although I would be interested in knowing more about the original language. earth is still the name of the world we live in , do you know that the ''(ear)th'' is designed to hear and respond to ''natures'' ''voice'' ? earth O.E. eorðe "ground, soil, dry land," also used (along with middangeard) for "the (material) world" (as opposed to the heavens or the underworld), from P.Gmc. *ertho (cf. O.N. jörð, M.Du. eerde, O.H.G. erda, Goth. airþa), from PIE base *er-. The earth considered as a planet was so called from c.1400. Earthy in the fig. sense of "coarse, unrefined" is from 1594. Earthworm first attested 1591. Earthwork is from 1633. Earthlight apparently coined 1833 by British astronomer John Herschel. Do you have another source that ties earth and ear? Yes.... But then you wouldn't believe that source either, would you? I read it in a book called , ''The Word'' ..... And after thinking about it, for myself, I realized that whoever named the earth, did a very good job. It is appropriately named, as far as I can understand. I guess you do not think of the earth as having an ear? wow, you must be deaf and blind Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Both wrong on Jul 13, 2007 11:43:00 GMT -5
Yes.... But then you wouldn't believe that source either, would you? I read it in a book called , ''The Word'' ..... And after thinking about it, for myself, I realized that whoever named the earth, did a very good job. It is appropriately named, as far as I can understand. I guess you do not think of the earth as having an ear? wow, you must be deaf and blind Thanks You are missing the symmetry. God would never have it as unbalanced as (ear)th. It was named earth because the earth is filled with art: earth
|
|
|
Post by perhaps on Jul 13, 2007 11:54:04 GMT -5
Yes.... But then you wouldn't believe that source either, would you? I read it in a book called , ''The Word'' ..... And after thinking about it, for myself, I realized that whoever named the earth, did a very good job. It is appropriately named, as far as I can understand. I guess you do not think of the earth as having an ear? wow, you must be deaf and blind Thanks You are missing the symmetry. God would never have it as unbalanced as (ear)th. It was named earth because the earth is filled with art: earth interesting, neato, EartH....hmmm well I don't know much about art, do you?
|
|
|
Post by enough on Jul 13, 2007 12:16:11 GMT -5
You are missing the symmetry. God would never have it as unbalanced as (ear)th. It was named earth because the earth is filled with art: earth interesting, neato, EartH....hmmm well I don't know much about art, do you? I know enough about art (and ears) to know neither one of them were at all linked to the word earth. Next you will try to tell us that carbon was named after the good car, in an effort to link French and English. You should just stick to what you are good at. Posting does not appear to be at the top of the list.
|
|
Natures earths ears
Guest
|
Post by Natures earths ears on Jul 17, 2007 15:47:08 GMT -5
earth O.E. eorðe "ground, soil, dry land," also used (along with middangeard) for "the (material) world" (as opposed to the heavens or the underworld), from P.Gmc. *ertho (cf. O.N. jörð, M.Du. eerde, O.H.G. erda, Goth. airþa), from PIE base *er-. The earth considered as a planet was so called from c.1400. Earthy in the fig. sense of "coarse, unrefined" is from 1594. Earthworm first attested 1591. Earthwork is from 1633. Earthlight apparently coined 1833 by British astronomer John Herschel. Do you have another source that ties earth and ear? Yes.... But then you wouldn't believe that source either, would you? I read it in a book called , ''The Word'' ..... And after thinking about it, for myself, I realized that whoever named the earth, did a very good job. It is appropriately named, as far as I can understand. I guess you do not think of the earth as having an ear? wow, you must be deaf and blind Thanks[/quot No, I think it does. Nature not only hears/ears , but it harkens/does what ever it is suppose to do, as per the laws of nature.
|
|
|
Post by laws of the earth on Jul 17, 2007 16:25:56 GMT -5
Nature gives the 'commands'..... these commands are literated in every language of the earth the commands of nature, are precisely followed by the various kingdoms of this earth/ world. Thus the earth is the hearer or the ear to the commands of ''nature''. Humans give nature a language that humans can understand, but the earth will continue to have its seasons, and gravitational effects, whether or not it knows what language the humans are speaking, as nature is a language in itself.
|
|
looking for answers too
Guest
|
Post by looking for answers too on Jul 18, 2007 8:54:15 GMT -5
I know enough about art (and ears) to know neither one of them were at all linked to the word earth. Next you will try to tell us that carbon was named after the good car, in an effort to link French and English. Very good answer. I am impressed with your ''know''ledge ;D. I did look up ''car''. I found that (technically) it should be called ''motor car'' or ''streetcar'', and the name comes from carre, or cart, which is a wagon used in transportation, whatever Since this is the evolution thread, I suppose we could find out how our written languages evolved over the years. Written history, is not as old as oral history, we know, but consider that the history of written words , symbolic writings, have a rather modest historical origination, as far as what we have unearthed to date. I wonder what peoples were the first to have a written language, and what historical book could I read in English language that would help me to unearth the events that preceded Moses, and Abraham, etc. Any answers?
|
|
|
Post by Brad Lewis on Jul 18, 2007 19:57:40 GMT -5
Read the Bible. It tells about what happened before Abraham and Moses. You can also look at the earth, which is everything that remained after the flood. Brad
|
|
|
Post by earthen ears on Jul 20, 2007 12:32:20 GMT -5
I know enough about art (and ears) to know neither one of them were at all linked to the word earth. Why do some scientists refer to earth, as ''mother earth''?? In order to have consciousness, we need to have the ability to respond to the hearing of some ''being''. In order to have hearing, there need be an understandable noise and/or ''voice''. OK, if earth is the ear....then what pray tell is the voice? Either ''father time'', or......... wisdom. Yes, wisdom, is a voice that cries in the street.....it may be the voice of our own consciousness telling us the difference 'tween right and wrong, or even whispering some good ole 'common sense' into our earthen ears.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2007 6:20:50 GMT -5
No-one inside science says man comes from monkeys. All primates have a common ancestor, who is not around.
But something can still be "around" and have another species separate from it. Take the most recent example, HIV. Human Immuno' Virus comes from SIV, which is the common, and still existing, Simian Immuno' Virus.
No, we "come from" the last species, in this case it may be Homo sapien idaltu.
|
|
|
Post by OkOK on Jul 21, 2007 6:33:47 GMT -5
No-one inside science says man comes from monkeys. All primates have a common ancestor, who is not around. But something can still be "around" and have another species separate from it. Take the most recent example, HIV. Human Immuno' Virus comes from SIV, which is the common, and still existing, Simian Immuno' Virus. No, we "come from" the last species, in this case it may be Homo sapien idaltu. So then we really did come from slime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2007 6:57:00 GMT -5
quote - "So then we really did come from slime." Is that a question? I am not sure what "slime" is. I think it is mould amoeba. I am reading an interesting book at the moment called "The Ancestors Tale" by R.Dawkins. He covers all the major plant and animal groups, and their evolutionary connection.
But no, we are, technically, Homo sapien sapien. We came from Homo sapien, who most likely came from Homo sapien idaltu, who came from Homo sapien heidelbergenis (?) and then from one of several types of Homo erectus.
|
|
|
Post by Brad Lewis on Jul 21, 2007 21:12:05 GMT -5
No-one inside science says man comes from monkeys. All primates have a common ancestor, who is not around. But something can still be "around" and have another species separate from it. Take the most recent example, HIV. Human Immuno' Virus comes from SIV, which is the common, and still existing, Simian Immuno' Virus. No, we "come from" the last species, in this case it may be Homo sapien idaltu. Evolution supposedly came from some reasoning of which none is around anymore either. I came from my mom, who came from her mom etc. And way on down they line, I'm related to Noah. Praise God for the Bible to save us from this nonsense. Brad
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Jul 21, 2007 21:16:45 GMT -5
I am reading an interesting book at the moment called "The Ancestors Tale" by R.Dawkins. He covers all the major plant and animal groups, and their evolutionary connection. Bert, that's a great book, I loved it, but...you are a Dawkins fan? Isn't he openly derisive of believers in God?
|
|
|
Post by Brad Lewis on Jul 22, 2007 0:10:51 GMT -5
I am reading an interesting book at the moment called "The Ancestors Tale" by R.Dawkins. He covers all the major plant and animal groups, and their evolutionary connection. Bert, that's a great book, I loved it, but...you are a Dawkins fan? Isn't he openly derisive of believers in God? You gotta be kidding me! You're writing to a 2x2 as if he cares if someone is derisive of Christians. You've lost some fizz man. Brad
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2007 6:55:35 GMT -5
Diet Coke (you should register that name!) Dawkins is an arrogant man. He uses the most incredible strawman arguments against Christianity. I ignore this and focus on his biology. Dawkins prides himself in using the rigor of scientific logic in his work, but then dispenses with it in discussing God.
|
|