I learned in church today

[LA Ute]

We get it, you are trying to change your image here a bit. Go back to listening to rock music "on a Sunday."

But I didn't do that while playing face cards.

[Northwestcoug]

I heard a good discussion of technology advancement in university. Up until the 1800's, there were single scientific discoveries that raised the level of knowledge greatly. From the 1900's onward, there really haven't been discoveries of similar magnitude. There are thousands of shared discoveries that raise the level of knowledge, but not to the extent of the likes of Pastuer, Koch, etc.

Anyway, in this context, things like the Internet or molecular medicine, while still incredible, do not seem as miraculous had they occurred without the thousands of advancements that led to them.

[LA Ute]

I heard a good discussion of technology advancement in university. Up until the 1800's, there were single scientific discoveries that raised the level of knowledge greatly. From the 1900's onward, there really haven't been discoveries of similar magnitude. There are thousands of shared discoveries that raise the level of knowledge, but not to the extent of the likes of Pastuer, Koch, etc.

Anyway, in this context, things like the Internet or molecular medicine, while still incredible, do not seem as miraculous as they would have occurred without the thousands of advancements that led to them.

Good point. I'm mainly talking about the acceleration in advancement, and it does seem that each major advancement leads to a zillion smaller ones.

[ERCougar]

I heard a good discussion of technology advancement in university. Up until the 1800's, there were single scientific discoveries that raised the level of knowledge greatly. From the 1900's onward, there really haven't been discoveries of similar magnitude. There are thousands of shared discoveries that raise the level of knowledge, but not to the extent of the likes of Pastuer, Koch, etc.

Anyway, in this context, things like the Internet or molecular medicine, while still incredible, do not seem as miraculous had they occurred without the thousands of advancements that led to them.

What did they have to say about relativity?

[Northwestcoug]

What did they have to say about relativity?

OK, that's an obvious exception.

[ERCougar]

OK, that's an obvious exception.

I'm not attacking you--I'm sincerely curious what they had to say about that. I think it singlehandedly destroys the theory.

Also...Watson and Crick? Pauling?

Edit: I'm still open to the idea, but it seems to me that the main difference between the twentieth and nineteenth century is perspective, not advancement. In 100 years, they'll be talking about how scientific progress slowed with the millennium.

[Northwestcoug]

I'm not attacking you--I'm sincerely curious what they had to say about that. I think it singlehandedly destroys the theory.

Also...Watson and Crick? Pauling?

Edit: I'm still open to the idea, but it seems to me that the main difference between the twentieth and nineteenth century is perspective, not advancement. In 100 years, they'll be talking about how scientific progress slowed with the millennium.

Let me try this again. There were only a handful of scientists that revolutionized germ theory. Before they came along, no one understood how infectious organisms caused sickness. The world was literally in the dark about how the majority of people got sick and died. So people like Pasteur designed experiments that revolutionized conventional thinking. At least according to my understanding, there weren't a whole lot of discoveries that inched toward these major discoveries.

I don't think your example of Watson and Crick are similar. Mendel had developed his theory of genetic inheritence decades prior. There were hundreds of experiments had looked into protein and other substances as possible genetic material. X-ray crystallography had been developed years before.

So while the structure of DNA revolutionized modern biology, its discovery had been predated by numerous discoveries that led to it. It did not happen seemingly out of the blue, which is kind of the sense I get with the early discoveries about microbiology, chemistry, etc.

[FMCoug]

I often let my mind wander and play "what if" on historic things, technology, etc. Something I've been thinking about lately is the impact of the Dark Ages. 800 years of technology backsliding / dormancy. From Roman aqueducts to squalor. Think of where we'd be with those 800 years of advancement.

[Tim]

This one, although perhaps not artfully expressed, actually makes lots of sense:



My own pet belief (which may be supported by prophetic utterances - I haven't checked) is that the astonishingly accelerated advances in technology that began pretty much when this dispensation began are not coincidental. Without them it would be much more difficult to fulfill the church's mission. Considering that basic technologies in Joseph Smith's time were about the same as in Socrates' time (except for military weaponry) I think this is far from a silly idea.

Fine, maybe you believe that it's not a coincidence. But her words were, "That's actually not true at all." Even if there was some deeper work to be brought forth as a side effect of the social nature of technology, and even if you believe that God had a hand in it, to say that the internet's development essentially had NOTHING to do with the military... well, that's just stupid.

[Northwestcoug]

I often let my mind wander and play "what if" on historic things, technology, etc. Something I've been thinking about lately is the impact of the Dark Ages. 800 years of technology backsliding / dormancy. From Roman aqueducts to squalor. Think of where we'd be with those 800 years of advancement.

I hear you. I was in awe of ancient Roman architecture and art on my Italy trip. In some instances, the Renaissance only approximated the gains the Romans had made.

[LA Ute]

Fine, maybe you believe that it's not a coincidence. But her words were, "That's actually not true at all." Even if there was some deeper work to be brought forth as a side effect of the social nature of technology, and even if you believe that God had a hand in it, to say that the internet's development essentially had NOTHING to do with the military... well, that's just stupid.

I'm with you on that part.

[jay santos]

My own pet belief (which may be supported by prophetic utterances - I haven't checked) is that the astonishingly accelerated advances in technology that began pretty much when this dispensation began are not coincidental. Without them it would be much more difficult to fulfill the church's mission. Considering that basic technologies in Joseph Smith's time were about the same as in Socrates' time (except for military weaponry) I think this is far from a silly idea.

What technological advances have furthered the church's mission?

[UtahDan]

What technological advances have furthered the church's mission?

There are so many places to go with this....

[doctorcoug]

We made temple vows in the preexistence to our current spouse. This was from the bishop (I was visiting the ward). When somebody questioned further, he said, "this is what I know" and talked about the preexistence in a matter of fact manner.

[doctorcoug]

I heard a good discussion of technology advancement in university. Up until the 1800's, there were single scientific discoveries that raised the level of knowledge greatly. From the 1900's onward, there really haven't been discoveries of similar magnitude. There are thousands of shared discoveries that raise the level of knowledge, but not to the extent of the likes of Pastuer, Koch, etc.

Anyway, in this context, things like the Internet or molecular medicine, while still incredible, do not seem as miraculous had they occurred without the thousands of advancements that led to them.

What about mapping the genome?