|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation of the English Language | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I'm sorry for derailing this topic a little bit, but I can't help being reminded of what Hovind has to say about language.
"Probably, after the Flood, the Tower of Babel took place. God put them into different language groups. They spread out. Those that spoke French went one way. Those that spoke German went a different way. Those that spoke Spanish went a different way." - Hovind Um, if you don't know, French and Spanish both evolved straight from Latin. That's why they are called Romance Languages. Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
You think that's funny? One time someone asked him why the sun is burning even though there's no oxygen there and he responded saying he didn't know... here is the exact quote...
Listener's letter: [.....] It is said the Sun is a burning ball of gas, in other words fire. What is the one thing that fire needs to burn? Oxygen. How come that stars continue to burn if they have no oxygen to keep them burning? [.....] Hovind: Excellent question, Andres. I'm sorry but I don't know that I have a positive answer. [....] As far as the oxygen required, I'll have to pass on that one too and do some more study on that one. I don't know that I could prove one way or the other. I think there are different types of burning though - some do not require oxygen. Sorry about that, Andres. I'll have to do some research and check back with you on that one. For people who don't know, what goes on in the sun is called fusion (aka hydrogen burning). It's when 2 hydrogen atoms fuse to create helium and energy. May be Hovind should not so liberally use the "Dr." title when he doesn't even know off the top of his head this very obvious fact? Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
Before an hour ago, I honestly thought that what goes on in the sun is an obvious fact. But after talking to jar and anglagard, I guess it's not so obvious. So, I don't blame them for believing Hovind's bullshit. Talk about the blind leading the blind! Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Sorry, I was in a rush.
In physics, we usually refer to what goes on in the sun as "hydrogen burning". It's just another way of saying fusion. What I meant was I thought the phrase "hydrogen burning" was obvious to everyone until I talked to you two. The term "hydrogen burning" is probably the sources of confusion. Obviously, you two know what goes on in the sun. But others are not. When they hear us physicists say "hydrogen burning", they automatically assume combustion. Again, sorry for the poor wordings. Edited by Taz, : Changed "everything" to "everyone". I just got back from running. Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
See, people like us are at a disadvantage when it comes to stuff like this. Ordinary people usually can't understand something unless it's related to common everyday stuff. It's easier for them to understand combustion than fusion. This is how people like Hovind can make so much money by preying on the gullible. I just wonder what most people think so that I can understand the appeal that that Hovind claim has for them.
You'd be amazed to learn how many college students don't know simple facts like this. Although I'd never encountered someone in real life that didn't know it's not combustion at work in the sun (probably because the topic ever comes up anyway), I've dealt with college students that honest to god didn't know the reason stars are so small in the sky is because they're so far away. Back in my TA days for physics, I was very surprised to find some of my students coming up to me to ask if the sun was just an ordinary star how come the stars are so much smaller than the sun? Another example is the way we can determine the distances of the stars. Take parallax and red shifts for example. It's a lot easier for Hovind to claim that there's no way we can know the stars are such and such distance away or if they're moving away. It's a lot harder for us to actually explain to ordinary folks what parallax and red shifts tell us and how/why.
I'm at a big disadvantage with this claim, because I've known ever since about third grade that the sun and stars burn through fusion. It is virtually impossible for me to even imagine how anyone could actually think that it's by other means, such as combustion.
Now that you mention it, I seem to remember learning about this in middle school or so. We went through possibilities of what might go on in the sun. Based on the energy output of the sun, there just isn't enough mass for a chemical process to go on this long and giving out this much energy. This fact alone should tell anyone that it's not combustion at work. Oh my goodness, I just looked at the thread title... sorry for bringing everyone way off topic. Edited by Taz, : No reason given. Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
akhenaten writes:
See, this kind of question shows up a lot when we are talking about biological evolution. "When was the lion become a true lion?" and other nonsense... I can say, for example, that airplanes were first invented in 1903 but the Concorde, a subcategory of "airplane", was first invented in 1969. When was English invented? There was not a specific time and date when people decided to switch from old english to english. There was not a specific time and date when everybody in the world decided to end the bronze age and started the iron age. There was not a specific time and date when animal X decided to stop being animal X and become the modern lion. Instead, these things took place over very long periods of time and by very small steps at a time. Sure, there's a big difference between modern english and old english, but if you are an immortal who had lived through the centuries to witness the changes, it is doubtful that you'd actually notice any change at all until one day you decide to look back and say "hey!" Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
anglagard writes:
You know, some people might dispute this fact, England being an island and all... ABE - Geography 101, England (or properly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is part of Europe. It's like Japan. Some people dispute the fact that Japan is part of Asia. Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
Are you trying to be funny? I can't tell. English was iniated in England, circa 800 CE. At this time, French was spoken in England, which lost a war with the french. But english prevailed, when the English king himself decreed an important book of law be translated in the then new non-established english language, as an affront to the french. Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024