1965: Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson CMBR Nobel Prize winners.
Confirming that "In the beginning..."
I thought that the Stoics were right about how the Universe originated from fire: Ekpyrosis1965: Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson CMBR Nobel Prize winners.
Confirming that "In the beginning..."
How convenient.Off topic steve_bank
We're not debating God and the bible here.
Nah.
I'm just avoiding the ole bait and switch.
Troll me into a bible debate then accuse ME of derailing the thread.
The way I heard the story, the religious authorities really didn't mind. You want to say the earth goes around the sun, and all the rest? Go right ahead: it's just a clever mathematical trick for speeding up astronomical calculations -- nobody believes it's really happening. Bruno wasn't executed for any of that. The problem was where the line of reasoning led him......the universe is huge, with the stars being suns like our own, possibly with their own planets and their own life.
Aristarchus of Samos and perhaps Archimedes were Greeks who understood the huge distance to the stars. Later Europeans who had this insight include Levi ben Gerson (14th century), Nicholas Kryffs Cusanus (15th century), Giordano Bruno (16th century), and Galileo (early 17th century). Religious authorities did not welcome the insights that the Earth might not be unique, and that Heaven was subject to the same physical laws as Earth. Giordano Bruno in particular was severely abused: Has his story been made into a movie?
The way I heard the story, the religious authorities really didn't mind. You want to say the earth goes around the sun, and all the rest? Go right ahead: it's just a clever mathematical trick for speeding up astronomical calculations -- nobody believes it's really happening. Bruno wasn't executed for any of that. The problem was where the line of reasoning led him...... Religious authorities did not welcome the insights that the Earth might not be unique, and that Heaven was subject to the same physical laws as Earth....
The Earth goes around the sun? Ridiculous, the stars would be seen to move.
They don't move because they're so far away? Ridiculous, they'd be so far away you couldn't see them.
You can see them because they're really bright? Ridiculous, they'd have to be as bright as the sun.
They really are as bright as the sun? Ridiculous, that would mean they are suns.
They really are suns? Ridiculous, that would mean the sun is a star.
The sun really is a star? Ridiculous, that would mean any star can have its own Earth.
Another star really has its own Earth? Ridiculous, that would mean there are people on other Earths around other stars.
There really are people on other Earths around other stars? Ridiculous, the word of Jesus could never reach them from here, so they'd be doomed to Hell, and God wouldn't do that.
They would hear of Jesus, because each other Earth had its own Jesus? Heretic! We'll burn you at the stake!
Nah.
I'm just avoiding the ole bait and switch.
Troll me into a bible debate then accuse ME of derailing the thread.
Didn't you write "1965: Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson CMBR Nobel Prize winners.
Confirming that "In the beginning...""?
Nah.
I'm just avoiding the ole bait and switch.
Troll me into a bible debate then accuse ME of derailing the thread.
Why would they assume such a thing? Is it because you used the word "code" rather than "gene sequencing"?If that coded information was found written somewhere on an object sent into outer space on the Golden Voyager, the eventual recipient would certainly think it was deliberately designed code.
What about the technologies we've developed that have had negative consequences? Could those also be called key discoveries? Key in understanding the actual story of our history, maybe.
Certainly. Indeed it would be more on-topic than discussion of whether G.W. Bush is a great ape, or some sort of lesser ape.
Who the heck worships science? Citing the science the half the time it agrees with your ideology but ignoring or misrepresenting the science the half the time it disagrees with your ideology does not count as worshiping science.I'd be interested to know the 22nd or 23rd century perspective on the post-enlightenment era. Right now we worship science, I wonder how that will change.
Who the heck worships science? Citing the science the half the time it agrees with your ideology but ignoring or misrepresenting the science the half the time it disagrees with your ideology does not count as worshiping science.I'd be interested to know the 22nd or 23rd century perspective on the post-enlightenment era. Right now we worship science, I wonder how that will change.