The History of Earth and its Mysterious Origins
- Our earth is just a small part of the vast universe, with the sun as its center.
- Geology has traced back the history of the earth's crust, but beyond a certain point, uncertainty remains.
- Speculations have been made about the origins of the earth, involving the concretion of nebular matter and the role of the sun.
- ベストアンサー
和訳お願い致します。
Our earth then is but one of the lesser pendants of a body[a body=the sun]which is itself only an inconsiderable unit in the vast creation.And now if we withdraw our thoughts for the immensities of space and look into the construction of man's obscure home,the first question is whether it has ever been in any other condition than that in which we now see it,and if so,what are the stages through which it has passed,and what was its first traceable state. Here geology steps in and successfully carriers back the history of earth's crust to a very remote period,until it arrives at a region of uncertainty,where philosophy is reduced to mere guesses and possibilities and pronounces nothing definite. To this region belong the speculation which have been ventured upon as to the original conccretion of the earth and planets our of nebular matter of which the sun may have been the nucles.
- mangifera
- お礼率62% (136/218)
- 英語
- 回答数2
- ありがとう数1
- みんなの回答 （2）
- 専門家の回答
質問者が選んだベストアンサー
以下のとおりお答します。 （carriers→carries, our of→out of, nucles→nucleusの誤植と見て訳しました。） さてそこで、私たちの地球は「身体」が持つところの、より劣ったペンダントの1つに過ぎません〔身体=太陽〕。それ自体は、広大な創造物の中にあって、取るに足りない一つの単体に過ぎないのです。そして今、もし私たちが宇宙の莫大なものに寄せる思いを引っ込めて、人間の薄暗い家という構造物をのぞいてみるとすれば、最初の疑問は、私たちが今見るものとは違った何らかの状態であったのかどうか、そして、もしそうならば、それが通ってきた段階は何か、また、遡及可能な最初の状態は何だったか、ということです。 ここに地球学が介入し、非常に遠い時期まで見事なまでに遡及していきます。それは不確実性の地帯に至るまで遡りますが、そこでは哲学が単なる推測および可能性に過ぎないまでに矮小化し、限定的なものは何も言明できません。この地帯には、太陽が核だったかもしれない星雲からの、地球と惑星の原初の具体化に関して、思い切ってなされた推測が属します。
その他の回答 (1)
- oignies
- ベストアンサー率20% (673/3354)
とても退屈な文章です。訳しても退屈だとおもいますが。 でだしは、地球は太陽のぶらさがっているにすぎない、ちいさな物体だし、太陽じたい、全創造物の中では巨大とはいえ、ひとつの構成要素にすぎない。 という文章です。宇宙といわず、創造物といっているところからして、あまり科学的ではないですよね。一生懸命よんでも、たいした知見はえられないとおもいます。
関連するQ&A
- 和訳お願い致します。
This earth apparently so still and steadfast,lying in majestic repose beneath the aestherial vault,is a globular body of comparatively insignificant size, whirling fast through space round the sun as the centre of its orbit, and completing its revolution in the course of one year, while at the same time it revolves daily once about its own axis,thus producing the change of day and night. The sun,which seems to lead up each morning from the east and, traversing the skyey bridge,slides down into the west,is relatively to our earth motionless. In size and weight it inconceivably surpasses it. The moon,which occupies a position in thr visible heavens only second to the sun and far beyond that[that=the position]of every other celestial body in conspicuousness, is but a subordinate globe,much smaller our own, and revolving round the earth as it's centre,while it accompanies it [it=the earth]in its[its=the earth's]yearly revolutions about the sun.Of itself it has no luster and is visible to us only by the reflected sunlight.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
But the first clear view which we obtain of the early condition of the earth presents to us a ball of matter,fluid with intense heat,spinning on its own axis and revolving round the sun. How long it may have continued in this state is beyond calculation or surmise. It can only be believed that a prolonged period,beginning and ending we know not when, elapsed before the surface became cooled and handened and capable of sustaining organized existences. The water, which now enwraps a large portion of the face of the globe, must for ages have existed only in the shape of steam, floating above and enveloping the planet in one thick curtain of mist. When the cooling of the surface allowed it to condense and descend, then commenced the process by which the lowest stratified rocks were formed and gradually spread out in vast layers. Rains and rivers now acted upon the scoriaceous integument, grinding it to sand and carrying it down to the depths and cavities. Whether organised beings coexisted with this state of things we know not, as the early rocks have been acted upon by interior heat to an extent which must have destroyed all traces of animal and vegetable life, if any such ever existed. This period has been named by geologists the Azoic or that in which life was not. Its duration no one presumes to define. And it is in the system of beds which overlies these primitive formations that the first records of organisms present themselves .
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
The reduction of the earth into the state in which we now behold it has been the slowly continued work of ages. The races of organic beings which have populated its surface have from time to time passed away,and been supplanted by others, introduced we know not certainly by what means, but evidently according to a fixed method and order and with a gradually increasing complexity and fitness of organization , until we come to man as the crowning point of all. Geologically speaking, the history of his first appearance is obscure, nor does archaeology do much to clear this obscurity. Science has, however, made some efforts towards tracing man to his cradle, and patient observation and collection of facts much more may perhaps be done in this direction. As for history and tradition, they afford little upon which anything can be built. The human race, like each individual man, has forgotten its own birth, and the void of its early years has been filled up by imagination, and not from genuine recollection. Thus much is clear, that man's existence on earth is brief, compared with the ages during which unreasoning creatures were the sole possessors of the globe.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
The Hebrew race, their works, and their books, are great facts in the history of man; the influence of the mind of this people upon the rest of mankind has been immense and peculiar, and there can be no difficulty in recognising therein the hand of a directing Providence. But we may not make ourselves wiser than God, nor attribute to Him methods of procedure which are not His. If, then, it is plain that He has not thought it needful to communicate to the writer of the Cosmogony that knowledge which modern researches have revealed, why do we not acknowledge this, except that it conflicts with a human theory which presumes to point out how God ought to have instructed man? The treatment to which the Mosaic narrative is subjected by the theological geologists is anything but respectful. The writers of this school, as we have seen, agree in representing it as a series of elaborate equivocations -- a story which palters with us in a double sense.' But if we regard it as the speculation of some Hebrew Descartes or Newton, promulgated in all good faith as the best and most probable account that could be then given of God's universe, it resumes the dignity and value of which the writers in question have done their utmost to deprive it. It has been sometimes felt as a difficulty to taking this view of the case, that the writer asserts so solemnly and unhesitatingly that for which he must have known that he had no authority. But this arises only from our modern habits of thought, and from the modesty of assertion which the spirit of true science has taught us. Mankind has learnt caution through repeated slips in the process of tracing out the truth.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 構文分析よろしくお願い致します
A good farmer is always one of the most intelligent and best educated men in our society. We have been inclined in our wild industrial development, to forget that agriculture is the base of our whole economy and that in the economic structure of the nation it is always the cornerstone. It has always been so throughout history and it will continue to be so until there are no more men on this earth. We are apt to forget that that the man who owns land and cherishes it and works it well is the source of our stability as a nation, not only in the economic but the social sense as well. できるだけ詳しく教えていただけると嬉しいです。 よろしくお願い致します🙏
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
The early speculator was harassed by no such scruples, and asserted as facts what he knew in reality only as probabilities. But we are not on that account to doubt his perfect good faith, nor need we attribute to him wilful misrepresentation, or consciousness of asserting that which he knew not to be true. He had seized one great truth, in which, indeed, he anticipated the highest revelation of modern enquiry -- namely, the unity of the design of the world, and its subordination to one sole Maker and Lawgiver. With regard to details, observation failed him. He knew little of the earth's surface, or of its shape and place in the universe; the infinite varieties of organized existences which people it, the distinct floras and faunas of its different continents, were unknown to him. But he saw that all which lay within his observation bad been formed for the benefit and service of man, and the goodness of the Creator to his creatures was the thought predominant in his mind. Man's closer relations to his Maker is indicated by the representation that he was formed last of all creatures, and in the visible likeness of God. For ages, this simple view of creation satisfied the wants of man, and formed a sufficient basis of theological teaching, and if modern research now shows it to be physically untenable, our respect for the narrative which has played so important a part in the culture of our race need be in nowise diminished. No one contends that it can be used as a basis of astronomical or geological teaching, and those who profess to see in it an accordance with facts, only do this sub modo, and by processes which despoil it of its consistency and grandeur, both which may be preserved if we recognise in it, not an authentic utterance of Divine knowledge, but a human utterance, which it has pleased Providence to use Providence a special way for the education of mankind.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
The question of the meaning of the word bara,'create,'has been previously touched upon;it has been acknowledged by good critics that it doesn't of itself necessarily imply 'to make out of nothing upon the simple ground that it is found [to be]uesd in cases where such a meaning would be inapplicable . But the difficultly of giving to it the interpretation contended for by Dr Buckland and of uniting with this the assumption of a six days' creation, such as that described in Genesis, at a comparatively recent period, lies in this,that the heaven itself is distinctly said to have been formed by the division of the waters on the second day. Consequently , until. The first Mosaic day of creation, there was no sky, no local habitation for the sun,moon and stars, even supposing those bodies to have been included in the original material. Dr Buckland doesn't touch this obvious difficulty, without which his argument that the sun and moon might have been contemplated as pre-existing , although they aren't stated to have been set in the heaven until the forth day, is of no value at all.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
After all,' says Buckland, it should be recollected that the question is not respecting the correctness of the Mosaic narrative, but of our interpretation of it,' proposition which can hardly be sufficiently reprobated. Such a doctrine, carried out unreservedly, strikes at the root of critical morality. It may, indeed, be sometimes possible to give two or three different interpretations to one and the same passage, even in a modern and familiar tongue, in which case this may arise from the unskilfulness of the writer or speaker who has failed clearly to express his thought. In a dead or foreign language the difficulty may arise from our own want of familiarity with its forms of speech, or in an ancient book we may be puzzled by allusions and modes of thought the key to which has been lost. But it is no part of the commentator's or interpreter's business to introduce obscurity or find difficulties where none exist, and it cannot be pretended that, taking it as a question of the use of words to express thoughts, there are any peculiar difficulties about understanding the first chapter of Genesis, whether in its original Hebrew or in our common translation, which represents the original with all necessary exactness. The difficulties arise for the first time, when we seek to import a meaning into the language which it certainly never could have conveyed to those to whom it was originally addressed. Unless we go the whole length of supposing the simple account of the Hebrew cosmogonist to be a series of awkward equivocations, in which he attempted to give a representation widely different from the facts, yet, without trespassing against literal truth, we can find no difficulty in interpreting his words. Although language may be, and often has been, used for the purpose, not of expressing, but concealing thought, no such charge can fairly be laid against the Hebrew writer.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
We venture to think that the world at large will continue to consider the account in the first chapter of Genesis to be a cosmogony. But as it is here admitted that it does not describe physical realities, but only outward appearances, that is, gives a description false in fact, and one which can teach us no scientific truth whatever, it seems to matter little what we call it. If its description of the events of the six days which it comprises be merely one of appearances and not of realities, it can teach us nothing regarding them. Dissatisfied with the scheme of conciliation which has been discussed, other geologists have proposed to give an entirely mythical or enigmatical sense to the Mosaic narrative, and to consider the creative days described as vast periods of time. This plan was long ago suggested, but it has of late enjoyed a high degree of popularity, through the advocacy of the Scotch geologist Hugh Miller, an extract from whose work has been already quoted. Dr. Buckland gives the following account of the first form in which this theory was propounded, and of the grounds upon which he rejected it in favour of that of Chalmers:
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳お願い致します。
Now assuredly we have here a most important issue, and as it is one the discussion of which will constitute a large element of my work, it is perhaps desirable that I should state at the outset the manner in which I propose to deal with it . The question, then, as to whether or not human intelli gence has been evolved from animal intelligence can only be dealt with scientifically by comparing the one with the other, in order to ascertain the points wherein they agree and the points wherein they differ. Now there can be no doubt that when this is done, the difference between the mental faculties of the most intelligent animal and the mental faculties of the lowest savage[savage=wild beast] is seen to be so vast, that the hypothesis of their being so nearly allied as Mr. Darwin's teaching implies, appears at first sight absurd. And, indeed, it is not until we have become convinced that the theory of Evolution can alone afford an explanation of the facts of human anatomy that we are prepared to seek for a similar explanation of the facts of human psychology. But wide as is the difference between the mind of a man and the mind of a brute, we must remember that the question is one, not as to degree, but as to kind ; and therefore that our task, as serious enquirers after truth, is calmly and honestly to examine the character of the difference which is presented, in order to determine whether it is really beyond the bounds of rational credibility that the enormous interval which now separates these two divisions of mind can ever have been bridged over, by numberless inter mediate gradations, during the untold ages of the past.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
お礼
毎回ありがとうございます。