Dan Drake
dandrake.com> wrote> 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.
It isnt just ANY 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.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> Let's see: Lying. So, he really did curse and detest the Copernican
> ideas, considering them to be errors and heresies?
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> Or else there is indeed some part of *your* concept of PERJURY that I fail to understand.
It isnt MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.
