The Truth about the Gallileo affair - by an Atheist

[DrTaffy]

I included these references to show that the key issues raised by Tim O’Neill were true - in our opinion. I realize you disagree, that is to be expected - and I am certain a team of horses could not drag you away from that.

Teams of horses are not the appropriate tool to change someone’s mind. Evidence and arguments do that. And your ‘references’ do not seem to support your assertions in the OP.

As to parallaxes, I know nothing about them thank goodness.

Ah, so ignorance of a subject and pride in that ignorance are now considered valid arguments? :ehh:

In any case, such ignorance does not let you off the hook. As I said:

Galileo pointed out that there would not be observable stellar parallax if the stars were a long way away. He even had a fairly solid punt at estimating how far away they had to be.

This has been pointed out in this thread. You may not understand or agree with his answer, but to pretend that he could not or did not answer this is dishonest.

Even if you do not understand his answer (and are bizarrely proud of this), you still cannot honestly claim that he did not answer.

If I accept the opinion of someone I trust on this point, that is not dishonest, it is sensible.

It is dishonest to claim that Galileo “could not answer the strongest argument” against him when you know that he did answer it, and your only response is pride in not understanding that answer.

Why should I accept the opinion of someone who disagrees with me about just about everything?

If you only listen to or consider the opinions of those who agree with you, you end up with a very narrow mindset. That is part of why I am here.

As far as the statement about textbooks goes, I have it on good authority that it is true and I promised that if I ever got a chance to see some textbooks I would report.

Yet you have not done so, and have repeatedly demanded in this thread that your interlocutors provide supporting references for (or retract) their allegations. This standard seems not to apply to you?

But I admit it was a strategical error, I should merely have mentioned the way the affair is treated in the press, media, periodicals, lectures, and as discussed in classrooms, etc. That would not have given the wolves a chance to pounce .

Ooh, the nasty wolves have pounced, have they? How vewwy vewwy howwid of them!

But what are they (we?) doing that you are not? Did you not start this entire thread to complain about alleged misrepresentation of your side? So is it not entirely fair to point out that you are misrepresenting our side? And thereby being hypocritical?

Dare I ask what proof you have of “the way the affair is treated” in classrooms or lectures?

Of course, you can dilute your original claim down to only a few individual bloggers and reporters misrepresenting the facts, which I admit is true on our side, but then you again fall prey to the catch-22 of hypocrisy - not only do many on your side do as much, but they include you, on this thread. Including the CAF tract you cited.

 

[Stephen168]

As to parallaxes, I know nothing about them thank goodness.

You really don’t have to understand it. Just know that

… stellar parallax is the direct proof the earth moves.

Claiming stellar parallax would be impossible to observe doesn’t change the fact that stellar parallax is the direct observable proof required to prove the earth moves. Galileo did not provide proof, he provided an excuse.

That is why myth #1 in your OP is a proven myth.