On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:54:34 UTC, "Rod Speed"
gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
Well, here's what I understand: Lying under oath.
Let's see: under oath. If you don't believe that part, maybe you'd
condescend to explain how all the evidence is false, rather than simply
shouting.
Let's see: Lying. So, he really did curse and detest the Copernican ideas,
considering them to be errors and heresies?
Or else there is indeed some part of *your* concept of PERJURY that I fail
to understand.
