Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Top three reasons for optimism about the ID scam
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 17:59:01 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 311
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <1n7mljpp33onhujtgp4ltrarl60ejthc4r@4ax.com>
References: <k601ljlqd45og7nbcqqhaak5jago431j2t@4ax.com> <viqpip$15ssj$1@dont-email.me> <h248ljhr4e20lqkkqgl9kdpq95d6id33aa@4ax.com> <vj259m$38mpe$2@dont-email.me> <a93blj1hkdbuqcikt03lnravufloj3qol8@4ax.com> <vj4ofo$3uroq$1@dont-email.me> <ae1elj1aqlctpvuls9kekqo7ldir21ram7@4ax.com> <vj7ihd$ic2c$1@dont-email.me> <hhrfljhbhokk8mmgjcoiirsskeclpp47cc@4ax.com> <vj9sth$127ja$1@dont-email.me> <soplljdpvuhjjg5e69kvq2ss2taju8h7vc@4ax.com> <vjevec$2r36t$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="96087"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TNLnUkDsYOFggVUFPA2AcSA09p0=
Bytes: 19483

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 09:28:13 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/12/2024 8:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 11:14:25 -0600, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12/10/2024 1:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> You seem to have abandoned Salza and turned to your own reading of
>>>> Church documents.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a simple challenge for you. The Galileo affair has been
>>>> extensively studied; find one recognised historian - just one - who
>>>> agrees with you that heliocentrism was really a heresy and not just a
>>>> trumped-up charge as I described it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Point of Order:
>>>> ============
>>>> You claim a couple of times above that the New Advent article has been
>>>> changed. It hasn't. The content on New Advent is not subject to
>>>> editing like Wikipedia; it is a copy of the Catholic  Encyclopedia
>>>> exactly as it was published between 1907 and 1912 with volume 6
>>>> containing the Galileo article published in 1907.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You just snipped it all out and ran.  What I put up supported the source
>>> that is claimed to be Salza.
>> 
>> That site says "that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . .
>> was to become one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent
>> controversy".
>> 
>> That's two sites you have given to support your claims but they both
>> say the opposite of what you claimed they said. I would put it down to
>> poor comprehension skills but you have shown more than competent
>> skills in your excellent  scientific posts so it has to be your
>> beliefs about  this matter being so deeply imbedded that they simply
>> don't let you absorb anything contradictory.
>> 
>You are getting as bad as Nyikos.  You can't just snip and run from what 
>you can't deal with.  Just look at how you have been manipulating my 
>posts without marking your Snips.
>
>You are likely quote mining the site.  They clearly indicate that it was 
>a heresy in 1616, and continue to call it a heresy in 1633.  

No quote mining at all. Here is the full opening paragraph 

<quote>
Contrary to the claims of the new geocentrists, when the 1633 decree
is read strictly we find that even a strict Copernicanism is not
declared to be formally heretical.  This position is a common error.
Dr. Maurice Finocchiaro notes, "that Copernicanism had been declared
heretical . . . was to become one of the most persistent myths in the
subsequent controversy" (Retrying, p. 32).
<quote>

>Just deal 
>with what you have removed from my post.  Those quotes came directly 
>from your site.  They indicate that it was considered to be a heresy 
>since the 1541 Council of Trent, so Bruno would have faced that heresy, 
>but according to the other sites it was not made into a formal heresy by 
>the inquisition until around the time that Galileo faced the charge in 
>1615.  All the sources agree that it was deemed heretical and Copernican 
>writings were banned by the 1616 Index.
>
>The anti-Salza catholic site that you keep snipping out even admits that 
>the Inquisition had made it into a formal heresy by 1616.  They just 
>claim that that 1616 judgement was not adopted by the 1633 court.  That 
>1633 court claims Galileo was being charged with heresy, they define the 
>heresy, and they claim that Galileo was guilty.  The anti-Salza site 
>only claims that they never called it a "formal" heresy as it had been 
>called in 1616.
>
>Just go back up to the posts where you have been snipping everything out.
>
>Where everyone might agree is that the Pope had nothing to do with the 
>1616 claims of formal heresy, but the Pope doesn't seem to be required 
>to call something a formal heresy.  

I really, really wish you would stop showing how little you know about
the Catholic Church and heresy but don't let it stop you making daft
claims about it. There is nothing nice about watching somebody as
generally respected as you are making such an idiot of himself :(

From the site you claim to support you, referring to the 1633 sentence
that you keep regurgitating, claiming it to confirm heresy:

<quote>
And noted authority on the history of science, Dr. John Heilbron,
observed:

The sentence against Galileo does not state explicitly that belief in
the sun-centered universe is a heresy. The Holy Office judge
Copernicanism to be "contrary to Scripture," which is not ipso facto
heretical in the sense of contrary to faith; to proceed from "opposed
to the literal meaning of Scripture" to "heretical" required at a
minimum express approbation by a pope.
</quote>

Note that final bit aboout requiring *at a minimum* express
approbation by a pope (my emphasis added). Yet again, the site you
claim to support you actually contradicts you.


>The anti-neogeocentris (against guys 
>like Salza) just want heliocentrism to not have been declared a formal 
>heresy in 1633.  They want to protect the Pope's infallibility due to 
>his involvement in the case and judgement.  They want to claim that the 
>1616 inquisition judgement against Galileo was not "adopted" by the 1633 
>court, but only "cited" by the court.  They claim that it was never 
>designated a "formal" heresy by the 1633 court, and that the court only 
>refers to it as heresy.  The stupid thing is that in order to protect 
>Papal infallibility they have to claim that the 1633 court judgement has 
>been misinterpreted.  This claim of misinterpreting the sentencing of 
>Galileo has been going on for centuries because they do not want the 
>Pope to be wrong about heliocentrism.  The claim is that Galileo was not 
>found guilty of the heresy as the sentencing claims, but that he was 
>actually found guilty about breaking his oath to the 1616 inquisition. 
>This reinterpretation seems to directly conflict with the claim that the 
>court never "adopted" the 1616 judgement about formal heresy.  Why would 
>Galileo be guilty of breaking his oath (he would have committed heresy 
>in order to break that oath) if what he was swearing not to do was 
>inconsequential?
>
>In order to continue this papal infallibility claim they have to claim 
>that when the Pope had the case and judgement disseminated throughout 
>the church that it was not an official act.  They admit that he did it 
>because he wanted to quash the heliocentric heresy that was spreading in 
>the church, but that it did not have the signature of papal 
>infallibility.  I guess everything that the pope does is not considered 
>to be infallible.
>
>You can't just manipulate my post and run from reality.  Just go back up 
>to the unmanipulated posts and deal with them.
>
>The evidence (even your evidence) indicates that heliocentrism became a 
>heresy with the Council of Trent findings in 1541.  Bruno would have 
>faced this heresy charge.  Your source continues to call it a heresy in 
>1616 and 1633, but they do not make the distinction between a "formal" 
>heresy and just a heresy.  Both the Salza site and the 
>anti-neogeocentric site agree that it was a formal heresy that Galileo 
>faced in the 1616 inquisition judgement, and that Copernican writings 
>were banned by the 1616 Index as being heretical.
>
>Galileo faced the charge of heresy in 1633, but the anti-neogeocentrists 
>just claim that it is never claimed to be a "formal" heresy in the 
>sentencing.  They claim that the 1616 inquisition findings were not 
>"adopted" and only "cited" by the 1633 court.  They claim that the 
>sentencing has been misinterpreted when there likely is no 
>misinterpretation, and that the alternate charge that Galileo actually 
>was found guilty of was violating his oath to the 1616 inquisition. 
>This seems to indicate that the sentencing was about a formal heresy 
>charge even though it is not directly stated as such.  In order for 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========