Father Busa, the Jesuit priest who invented the hypertext

Keaton

For those who say that the Church is the enemy of science and progress:

The pioneer of computer science language has passed away at the age of 98

ANDREA TORNIELLI
ROME
If you can read this article, typed using a computer keyboard, it is greatly thanks to him. If PC and notebook have left the typewriter permanently on the sidelines, if we can compose and decompose texts, perform analysis and researches at the click of a mouse, if we increasingly communicate through virtual messages, this is all greatly thanks to him. Father Roberto Busa, a Jesuit, inventor of computer language, forerunner of the active hypertext on the Web fifteen years earlier than American scientists, editor as well of the monumental Index Thomisticus, died of old age on Tuesday evening at the Aloisianum institute in Gallarate. He withdrew here decades ago, where he also found his friend and co-brother Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. He would have turned 98 this November and until a few weeks ago he was still very active and engaged in new projects... >>>

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/documents/detail/articolo/web-busa-6893/

homer911

Better update Wikipedia so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext

kelly1

Also Fr George Lemaitres who first proposed the Big Bang theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

28064212

Keaton wrote: »

Father Busa, the Jesuit priest who invented the hypertext

He really wasn't. The person who wrote that article clearly has very little understanding of computer science. Here's a much better article on him that doesn't just throw some technical words together and hope they sound good. He was a pioneer in computational linguistics: the use of computers to analyse natural language. He had nothing to do with the development of hypertext, and saying he does just diminishes both his own accomplishments and the actual people who worked on it

yutta

I think the ignorant masses are finally digesting the idea that Catholicism is not at odds with science. Science complements our understanding of the universe and is therefore something that the Church are particularly interested in.

MrPudding

kelly1 wrote: »

Also Fr George Lemaitres who first proposed the Big Bang theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Now that is impressive. I love the big bang theory, particularly Sheldon, and Penny is h.a.w.t. hawt!

MrP

Manach

Pics?

MrPudding

Manach wrote: »

Pics?

At work so can't really do pics, try this:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=penny+from+the+big+bang+theory

MrP

Zombrex

The Church has always been at odds with science when science proposes something that contradicts the position of the Church or is seen to undermine Christian belief.

Hypertext doesn't do that, using it as an example of how science friendly the Church is is frankly ridiculous.

Can people give example of where the Church has happily embraced scientific theories that contradict Church teaching or dogma?

yutta

Zombrex wrote: »

The Church has always been at odds with science when science proposes something that contradicts the position of the Church or is seen to undermine Christian belief.

Hypertext doesn't do that, using it as an example of how science friendly the Church is is frankly ridiculous.

Can people give example of where the Church has happily embraced scientific theories that contradict Church teaching or dogma?

The church are happy to consider the theory of evolution for example. It's the atheistic/anti-Church spin that's put on it that the Church have a problem with.

But when you extend the theory of evolution and demand that man somehow evolved from a bacteria-like organism, it becomes absurd.

Manach

On one hand, Evolution is not a theory as such but is factual - based both on geological evidence and computer simulation. As such, mankind has evolved from single celled organisms. My offhand understanding, is that the Church holds that Evolution is a natural mechanism used to create man, akin to gravity.
On the other hand, non-Church state actors are quite eager to dispose of scientific data which does not equate with prevailing political trends, for example the thousands of engineers shot/exiled to Siberia for the failure of the massive state projects or for disagreeing that certain types of crops cannot be trained to grown at certain latitudes - which was against Soviet doctrine.

Delirium

yutta wrote: »

The church are happy to consider the theory of evolution for example. It's the atheistic/anti-Church spin that's put on it that the Church have a problem with.

But when you extend the theory of evolution and demand that man somehow evolved from a bacteria-like organism, it becomes absurd.

So what was the common ancestor for life on Earth then?

yutta

Manach wrote: »

On one hand, Evolution is not a theory as such but is factual - based both on geological evidence and computer simulation. As such, mankind has evolved from single celled organisms. My offhand understanding, is that the Church holds that Evolution is a natural mechanism used to create man, akin to gravity.
On the other hand, non-Church state actors are quite eager to dispose of scientific data which does not equate with prevailing political trends, for example the thousands of engineers shot/exiled to Siberia for the failure of the massive state projects or for disagreeing that certain types of crops cannot be trained to grown at certain latitudes - which was against Soviet doctrine.

Scientific proof occurs when a theory is reproduced in a laboratory.

Bacteria-like organisms have yet to be converted into a human being. Therefore "Evolution" is still a theory. A far-fetched one at that.

yutta

koth wrote: »

So what was the common ancestor for life on Earth then?

Why are you asking this on a Christianity forum? God made Adam and Eve.

Delirium

yutta wrote: »

Scientific proof occurs when a theory is reproduced in a laboratory.

Bacteria-like organisms have yet to be converted into a human being. Therefore "Evolution" is still a theory. A far-fetched one at that.

You've just shown that you don't understand what evolution is.

28064212

yutta wrote: »

Scientific proof occurs when a theory is reproduced in a laboratory.

It's really not

Delirium

yutta wrote: »

Why are you asking this on a Christianity forum? God made Adam and Eve.

Not every Christianity takes the story of Adam and Eve literally. I asked so as to understand what your perspective on it was.

yutta

koth wrote: »

Not every Christianity takes the story of Adam and Eve literally. I asked so as to understand what your perspective on it was.

I don't take the Old Testament literally either.

Ash.J.Williams

yutta wrote: »

I think the ignorant masses are finally digesting the idea that Catholicism is not at odds with science. Science complements our understanding of the universe and is therefore something that the Church are particularly interested in.

here we go....
I was always under the impression that the ignorance you speak of was an American evangelist type ignorance and was never part of the Irish Church?

Delirium

yutta wrote: »

I don't take the Old Testament literally either.

So why respond with the reference to Adam and Eve when I asked about the common ancestor for life on Earth?

If you don't believe life started as bacteria-like life or the Adam and Eve story, then what is your opinion on the subject?

Zombrex

yutta wrote: »

The church are happy to consider the theory of evolution for example. It's the atheistic/anti-Church spin that's put on it that the Church have a problem with.

But when you extend the theory of evolution and demand that man somehow evolved from a bacteria-like organism, it becomes absurd.

That is not an extension of the theory of evolution, that is the theory of evolution. We did evolve from bacteria like organisms.

Like I said, the Church rejects science when it suggests something they don't like. Hypertext isn't one of those things.

yutta

28064212 wrote: »

It's really not

Ok I'll be more specific. If we want to get pedantic, then there's no such thing as scientific "proof", is there?

There are however, scientific "laws". Scientific laws describe things. They do not explain them.

Scientific law: "a generalized description, usually expressed in mathematical terms, which describes the empirical behavior of matter."

E.g. Newton's law or E=mc^2

But one must remember that proof does not equal truth. Proving something does not make it true. It just means that you have convinced other people that the evidence supports your conclusion. There are many examples in law of people who have been "proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" who were not guilty at all. And most of us probably suspect that there are guilty people who get off.

Just as in court, proof in science does not equal truth. No scientist will ever claim that a theory is true, no matter how compelling (e.g. Einstein's E=mc^2). What they will do is state that the evidence agrees with the theory. Of course, sometimes new evidence shows up that we didn't have before. Then in science, as in law, we will reach a new conclusion. This is not to say that scientists don't have confidence in their ideas.

The scientific process in the Theory of Evolution is essentially an analysis of patterns amongst various different species. It's a beautiful theory in that complex phenomenon can be explained by a simple, concise theory. The full range of God's creatures share similar patterns and are inter-related to one another in ways that we never thought possible - this is not denied by the Catholic Church. The scientific evidence is compelling. It's the atheistic conclusions of Darwin's work is where the problem lies, not in the scientific method.

yutta

koth wrote: »

So why respond with the reference to Adam and Eve when I asked about the common ancestor for life on Earth?

If you don't believe life started as bacteria-like life or the Adam and Eve story, then what is your opinion on the subject?

I'd be interested to hear where this magic bacteria came from?

Zombrex

yutta wrote: »

Scientific proof occurs when a theory is reproduced in a laboratory.

Bacteria-like organisms have yet to be converted into a human being. Therefore "Evolution" is still a theory. A far-fetched one at that.

Firstly, there is no such thing as "scientific proof"

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Secondly your latter statement simply demonstrates your ignorance of evolution, not a problem with the theory.

Bacteria did not give birth to a human. There where billions of intermetatory stages between our distance bacterial ancestors that lived over a billion years ago and modern humans.

This is in fact why the theory is called "evolutionary" and not "revolutionary theory"

The idea that a bacteria will give birth to a human in a lab would actually disprove evolution, not support it.

Delirium

yutta wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear where this magic bacteria came from?

That's nothing to do with evolution. Would you care to answer my question?

yutta

Zombrex wrote: »

We did evolve from bacteria like organisms.

Is that the truth? Do you really believe that? If so, Science is your God.

yutta

Zombrex wrote: »

Firstly, there is no such thing as "scientific proof"

See post #22.

yutta

koth wrote: »

That's nothing to do with evolution.

Mmm. And you wonder why the Church have a problem with evolution?

Delirium

yutta wrote: »

I think the ignorant masses are finally digesting the idea that Catholicism is not at odds with science. Science complements our understanding of the universe and is therefore something that the Church are particularly interested in.

yutta wrote: »

Mmm. And you wonder why the Church have a problem with evolution?

Zombrex

yutta wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear where this magic bacteria came from?

Approximately a billions years of evolution on ancient Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

yutta

Zombrex wrote: »

Bacteria did not give birth to a human.

Thanks for that input. I'm sure even those ignorant of the most basic of scientific methods can see this. Now what was your point again?

yutta

Zombrex wrote: »

Approximately a billions years of evolution on ancient Earth.

Can't you see how the Catholic Church have a problem with this?

Johnny to Miss Harte: Where did the first magic bacteria come from?
Miss Harte: Approximately a billions years of evolution on ancient earth...
Johnny: Thanks Miss.

yutta

koth wrote: »

Could you please write what you mean? Pictorial representations of what's going on in your mind are of little use.

Zombrex

yutta wrote: »

Is that the truth? Do you really believe that? If so, Science is your God.

I've no idea what "Science is your God" actually means, but I do really believe that because neo-Darwinian evolution is one of the most supported theories in the history of science, the evidence for it is overwhelming.

in my experience religious people only reject it becasue they don't like what it says, not because they have any serious flaws in it.

But then there is a whole thread for discussing that topic. The point is that the Catholic Church can be very anti-science when it suits them.

yutta wrote: »

Thanks for that input. I'm sure even those ignorant of the most basic of scientific methods can see this. Now what was your point again?

My point is that you clearly do not understand the theory, which makes you denouncing it all the more stranger.

yutta wrote: »

Can't you see how the Catholic Church have a problem with this?

Well yes, they don't like what it says.

But then you will notice that reality has no obligation to appeal to Catholics.

yutta wrote: »

Johnny to Miss Harte: Where did the first magic bacteria come from?
Miss Harte: Approximately a billions years of evolution on ancient earth...
Johnny: Thanks Miss.

Having a problem with something because you have identified a flaw in what is being supposed and having a problem with it because you don't understand it or don't like it are two entirely different things, I'm sure you will agree.

The first "magic" (what ever that means) bacteria on Earth evolved from simpler life forms. I appreciate you don't "get that", but that is not really an issue for the theory. Your ability to understand it doesn't mean much for whether it is true or not. Or to put it another way, people a lot smarter than you do understand it.

Delirium

yutta wrote: »

Could you please write what you mean? Pictorial representations of what's going on in your mind are of little use.

I am confused how you can say that the RCC isn't at odds with science, while at the same time saying that they have a problem with evolution.

yutta

@Zombrex: what's your scientific qualification please?

Also, what religion are you?

I just want to get a gist of where you're coming from.

dlofnep

koth wrote:

That's nothing to do with evolution.

yutta wrote: »

Mmm. And you wonder why the Church have a problem with evolution?

Well, I can see why you'd have a problem with it - when it's quite clear you don't understand what evolution is. You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Koth is correct. The theory of evolution does not describe the origins of life, it describes the advancement of life.

The fact that you are looking for a lab to demonstrate the evolution of a single celled organism, into homo sapiens shows how ignorant you are of the process of evolution or the sort of time-lines that are involved.

Curiously enough, the types of people who take issue with evolution are always the same people who don't actually understand what it is.

yutta

koth wrote: »

I am confused how you can say that the RCC isn't at odds with science, while at the same time saying that they have a problem with evolution.

The Church have no problem with the scientific evidence from the theory of evolution. It's when people (particularly atheists) start saying that man derived from a magic bacteria that spontaneously appeared on earth (probably on an asteroid from planet Zog), things get silly.

Zombrex

yutta wrote: »

@Zombrex: what's your scientific qualification please?

I don't have one, beyond leaving cert biology.

yutta wrote: »

Also, what religion are you?

I'm an atheist

yutta wrote: »

I just want to get a gist of where you're coming from.

Where I'm coming from is irrelevant to what the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution says, nor is it relevant to the question of how genuine you are in attempting to understand it.

dlofnep

Moreover - if you think that the Church has not hindered science - I refer you to the treatment Galileo.

Zombrex

yutta wrote: »

The Church have no problem with the scientific evidence from the theory of evolution. It's when people (particularly atheists) start saying that man derived from a magic bacteria that spontaneously appeared on earth (probably on an asteroid from planet Zog), things get silly.

I'm pretty sure no scientist has ever used the term "magic bacteria". :rolleyes:

dlofnep

yutta wrote: »

Mmm. And you wonder why the Church have a problem with evolution?

yutta wrote: »

The Church have no problem with the scientific evidence from the theory of evolution. It's when people (particularly atheists) start saying that man derived from a magic bacteria that spontaneously appeared on earth (probably on an asteroid from planet Zog), things get silly.

Nobody has ever made that assertion. Nor has anyone stated that man evolved from Bacteria. Man evolved from an previous member of the Homo genus. The Homo family evolved from earlier primates (most likely a member of the Australopithecus family), which evolved from even earlier primates.

There was no jump from Bacteria to primates. It was very subtle changes, over an extremely large period of time that gave rise an abundance of speciation.

yutta

dlofnep wrote: »

Moreover - if you think that the Church has not hindered science - I refer you to the treatment Galileo.

Ah yes, I knew it wouldn't be long before that old chestnut came up.

Delirium

yutta wrote: »

The Church have no problem with the scientific evidence from the theory of evolution. It's when people (particularly atheists) start saying that man derived from a magic bacteria that spontaneously appeared on earth (probably on an asteroid from planet Zog), things get silly.

So what is the common ancestor of life on earth?

dlofnep

yutta wrote: »

Ah yes, I knew it wouldn't be long before that old chestnut came up.

It's a valid example of the Church conflicting with the progression of science, is it not?

mcmoustache

yutta wrote: »

@Zombrex: what's your scientific qualification please?

Also, what religion are you?

I just want to get a gist of where you're coming from.

That's hardly a fair question but I sure hope for your sake that you're not Catholic because you're a bit mixed up about what you're told to believe these days. The RCC isn't as anti science as you're making them out to be.

John Paul II wrote:

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Pope Benedict XVI wrote:

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.

If you want to be a Catholic, you should learn what it means to be one. Accept evolution and say a few Hail Marys and ask for God's forgiveness for being so misguided or else just become a Westboro Baptist or something which better matches your beliefs.

MrPudding

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm an atheist

:eek: So atheism is a religion?

MrP

Noo

yutta wrote: »

The Church have no problem with the scientific evidence from the theory of evolution. It's when people (particularly atheists) start saying that man derived from a magic bacteria that spontaneously appeared on earth (probably on an asteroid from planet Zog), things get silly.

Please just google first bacteria on earth and thousands of pages of will appear explaining how life formed from planet "zog" has scientific evidence to back it up, too much to be put on here. Yes no one knows yet how or when exactly the chemical components of bacteria reached the point of what we call a lifeform but it has been proven endlessly that the ingredients needed to create this bacteria can be replicated in a lab using chemicals found in pre-biotic oceans and in meteorites that crash landed on earth. So it didnt just spontaneouly appear, it is trying to define at which point the chemical ingredients became "living" that seems to be something they have yet (and i repeat yet) to discover.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that life originated in outer space, a simple internet search will show anyone this. The reason the church chooses not to accept this evidence and pass off all this scientific research as "silly" is simple, god created the universe and all life has meaning and purpose and a religious plan, the idea that life on earth was simply a lucky accident is incomprehensible.

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

:eek: So atheism is a religion?

MrP

Touche :P

The Quadratic Equation

Zombrex wrote: »

Can people give example of where the Church has happily embraced scientific theories that contradict Church teaching or dogma?

What scientific theory contradicts Church teaching or dogma ?

Sarky

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't have one, beyond leaving cert biology.

Well if it helps, I'm just about to get my third degree in the area of microbiology, and you're pretty much bang on the money as far as I'm concerned.