Dan Drake
dandrake.com> wrote> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>> John Fields
austininstruments.com> wrote>>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>>> John Fields
austininstruments.com> wrote>>>>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>>>>> John's original, still right at the top, is just plain wrong
>>>>>> on WHEN that collection of silly senile old farts realised
>>>>>> that the earth does in fact revolved around the sun.
>>>>> Sorry for the confusion.
>>>> There is no confusion and there still isnt. You were and still are just plain wrong.
>>> OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.
>> YOU made the original stupid claim.
>> YOU get to provide the evidence.
>> THATS how it works.
>>>>> What I was referring to was the Roman Catholic Church's
>>>>> official admission that Geocentrism was wrong
>>>> Yes, that was always clear.
>>>>> and, AIUI, that acknowledgement only occurred a few years ago.
>>>> And that is where you were always just plain wrong.
>>>> It happened a LONG time before that.
>>> OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.
>> YOU made the original stupid claim.
>> YOU get to provide the evidence.
>> THATS how it works.
>>>> Like I said, what actually happened only a few years ago, was that
>>>> they did officially admit that Galileo had been very badly treated.
>>> OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.
>> YOU made the original stupid claim.
>> YOU get to provide the evidence.
>> THATS how it works.
>>>>> Small comfort for Galileo, who knew he was right, beyond a shadow of doubt,
>>>> And he wasnt alone in recognising that at that time. The evidence was very clear.
>>> That's not the point.
>> Corse it is.
>>>>> but was forced to perjure himself
>>>> He didnt even perjure himself.
>>> In order to save his life, he was forced to lie about his
>>> beliefs before a legislating body, which is perjury.
>> Wrong, as always.
> Do you actually mean anything by that statement? If so, could you tell us what it is?
Pathetic.
> I mean, I assume you know what the word "recant" means.
Irrelevant to what the word perjury means.
> Obviously you know that Galileo recanted, formally, under oath, before witnesses,
> with a transcript being taken, the authenticity of which has never been questioned
Different matter entirely to whether that qualifys as perjury.
> -- unless you have now decided to question whether he really said it
Nope.
> (in which case it would be nice to know on what grounds
> you question it, in opposition to everyone else in the world
> and every historian of science that ever considered it).
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> BTW I am not arguing that the Church didn't recognize the Earth's motion till the 1990s.
That fool Fields is clearly doing just that.
> After all, when they allowed (in fact, _ordered_) the publication of Galileo's work undiluted in 1822,
They didnt get to ORDER a damned thing.
> it was not because the Inquisition had been converted into disciples
> of John Locke with a firm belief in Voltaire's famous principle which
> he never actually said, about defending to the death your right to be
> wrong. It was because they knew they looked too damn stupid by then
As I said, a separate matter entirely to when even those fools
had realised that the earth did in fact revolve around the sun.
> -- just as Galileo had warned their predecessors, though
> they were not about to say that out loud. And in only 170
> years more, the Church got around to saying it out loud.
You cant even manage to grasp just what 'it' is actually being discussed.
> This, of course, is a small point in itself; it's just that your
> uncompromising and unfounded statements tend to, you know,
> make it look as if you don't really know what you're talking about.
You in spades when you cant even manage to work out just what is being discussed.
> The senile old farts at Fordham U (your characterization, not mine;
I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
> I find a lot of highly respecatble scholarship in Romish
> sources) have proved a convenient reference:
Pity its doesnt even comment on what is actually being discussed.
> "...But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office
> entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the centre
> of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth was not the
> centre of the same and that it moved,... I did write and cause to
> be printed a book in which I treat of the said already condemned
> doctrine... : I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy,
> that is, of having held and believed that the Sun is the centre of
> the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth is not the
> centre of the same, and that it does move.
> "Nevertheless, wishing to remove from the minds of your
> Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion
> reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with sincere heart
> and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies...
> "I Galileo Galilei aforesaid have abjured, sworn, and promised, and
> hold myself bound as above; and in token of the truth, with my own
> hand have subscribed the present schedule of my abjuration, and have
> recited it word by word. In Rome, at the Convent della Minerva, this
> 22nd day of June, 1633.
> "I, GALILEO GALILEI, have abjured as above, with my own hand."
> What part of "recanted" or "abjured" or "under oath" do you not understand?
What part of PERJURY do you not understand ?
> Or is your claim that he really had joined the senile old farts in actually *believing* this crap?
Nope. I was JUST commenting there on whether what he said qualifys as PERJURY.
> It would be odd if you were to say that, considering your assertion
> (true enough) that there were other people who knew it was nonsense;
> this would make Galileo a more senile of fart than those people.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> Hence it's hard to figure out what you *do* mean.
Only for those with nothing viable between their ears.
