Technology that could have existed

If a famous scientist had died before making his groundbreaking discovery, or if certain events took place which altered the course of history, what kind of technology do you think we would have been left with today?

I'll start off with two things that come to mind:

1) If Nicola Tesla or another scientist had come up with a method to transfer electricity with practically no energy "loss", we could perhaps dial a number on our cellphone and request it to be wirelessly charged from the closest "energy tower".
2) If Hindenburg had not exploded, zeppelins and airships may have retained their original popularity, and would have a wider usage in different applications. Armored war zeppelins, similar to flying submarines in appearance?

I don't think you can armor a zeppelin, even if you fill it with vacuum instead of gas...

I'm convinced Einstein would have finished his Equation of Everything had he not died when he did. From what I've heard, he was about halfway through with it WHEN he died, but that could just be a fairy tale.

If Mendel had live just a little longer, I think he'd have found stronger evidence for evolution and may have changed religious stances against it.

Before anyone pounces me, I mean it in he would've found more things about cross-breeding/pollenating flowers as well as discovering more about how he can perpetuate the flowers and fauna to survive harsher conditions, thus ensuring survival of the fittest.

I'm convinced Einstein would have finished his Equation of Everything had he not died when he did. From what I've heard, he was about halfway through with it WHEN he died, but that could just be a fairy tale.

I doubt it. The closest we currently have to that is string theory and that wasn't really even realized until the 80s.

If Mendel had live just a little longer, I think he'd have found stronger evidence for evolution and may have changed religious stances against it. Before anyone pounces me, I mean it in he would've found more things about cross-breeding/pollenating flowers as well as discovering more about how he can perpetuate the flowers and fauna to survive harsher conditions, thus ensuring survival of the fittest.

It does seem to be a huge leap of faith, though to suggest that genetics alone proves that all organisms on earth have a common ancestor.

It wouldn't prove that so much, but it'd prove that things do change to match the conditions surrounding them a whole lot better. That is apart of evolution and it'd probably bring us one step closer to proving it and at least shutting up the religious nutjobs.

I don't think that the church (loosely used) can argue against evolution, as evidence of that is already well established. I think their argument is specifically against speciation, as speciation is the idea in direct conflict with Creationist thought.

The church doesn't need to argue against anything. Their religion teaches "blind faith," which is impossible to argue with.

If you present them with evidence against their religion, they say "God put this here to test my faith." You could have a letter from God himself telling them that he's just a fraud and he doesn't really do anything or give a shit about them and they wouldn't believe it.

Most priests I knew taught us not to have blind faith, but to question things and learn about our faith.

The church doesn't need to argue against anything. Their religion teaches "blind faith," which is impossible to argue with. If you present them with evidence against their religion, they say "God put this here to test my faith." You could have a letter from God himself telling them that he's just a fraud and he doesn't really do anything or give a shit about them and they wouldn't believe it.

Yes, all true, however there are a significant amount of semi-rational people who do question portions of their faith.

It wouldn't prove that so much, but it'd prove that things do change to match the conditions surrounding them a whole lot better. That is apart of evolution and it'd probably bring us one step closer to proving it and at least shutting up the religious nutjobs.

The problem with that is almost everyone acknowledges "microevolution", as the creationists have termed it. I think any more mendelian research would provide more evidence towards this microevolution. "Macroevolution" (another creationist term) is what they all seem to have problems with.

I don't think that the church (loosely used) can argue against evolution, as evidence of that is already well established. I think their argument is specifically against speciation, as speciation is the idea in direct conflict with Creationist thought.

I would argue that speciation is an integral tenet of biological evolution, and that arguing against speciation is arguing against biological evolution itself.

I would argue that speciation is an integral tenet of biological evolution, and that arguing against speciation is arguing against biological evolution itself.

I was more explaining what Creationists would have a problem with, not my personal views on it, I personally agree with you.