From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/16/2025 6:40 PM, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 11/16/25 8:34 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 15 Nov 2025 12:15:23 -0800, erik simpson   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 11/14/25 9:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:04:19 -0800, erik simpson   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 11/14/25 8:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:38:34 -0600, RonO    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 7:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 13:04:12 +0000, Martin Harran   
   >>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> [...]   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> No, it's most certainly not true. heliocentrism was *never* a   
   >>>>>>>>> heresy -   
   >>>>>>>>> you clearly don't even understand what the term "formal heresy"   
   >>>>>>>>> means.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> You really should educate yourself on this rather than   
   >>>>>>>> continuing to   
   >>>>>>>> make stupid claims that heliocentrism being a "formal heresy".   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> https://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2019/10/formal-vs-material-   
   >>>>>>>> heresy.html   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> [...]   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The anti geocentric catholics make a big deal about the difference   
   >>>>>>> between formal heresy and just a heresy.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> They wanted the Pope to not be   
   >>>>>>> associated with a formal heresy charge, but even they admitted   
   >>>>>>> that the   
   >>>>>>> Inquisition had made heliocentrism into a formal heresy charge when   
   >>>>>>> Galileo first faced the charge.  The anti geocentrics just claim   
   >>>>>>> that   
   >>>>>>> the Inquisition case against Galileo was not adopted by the court   
   >>>>>>> when   
   >>>>>>> the Pope got involved.  So both Catholic sides of the issue know   
   >>>>>>> that it   
   >>>>>>> was deemed to be a formal heresy.  One side just does not want it to   
   >>>>>>> have been a formal heresy charge when the Pope was involved.  The   
   >>>>>>> wiki   
   >>>>>>> also notes that it was deemed to be a formal heresy the first time   
   >>>>>>> Galileo faced the charge.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> Let's face it Martin.  Galileo's treatment at the hands of the church   
   >>>>> ("formal" or not) is a lasting embarrassment.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Absolutely, their treatment of him was truly awful and a very serious   
   >>>> abuse of the Church's authority. In fairness, the Church has openly   
   >>>> admitted that it did get it badly wrong.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Having said that, it always strikes me as somewhat ironic that those   
   >>>> wish to attack the Church for its dealings with science have to go   
   >>>> back 400 years to find one stupid mistake.   
   >>>>   
   >>> The church has indeed improved its outlook.   
   >>   
   >> That comes across as unjustified 'damning with faint praise' - it   
   >> suggests that the church needed to improve its outlook which I don't   
   >> think it needed to do. The Catholic Church has been highly supportive   
   >> of science and actively participated in it since it earliest days. You   
   >> seem to miss the significance of what I said about people only finding   
   >> one reprehensible incident [1], 400 years ago.   
   >   
   > Bruno? Buffon? And, one imagines, a certain amount of self-censorship.   
   > Note that for quite while, heliocentrism was allowed to be discussed (by   
   > Copernicus, for example) purely as a hypothetical matter of "saving the   
   > appearances", not as something real.   
   >   
   > The church's history with evolution and deep time is something that   
   > bears more examination too.   
      
   The Catholic church learned from being literally singed by their   
   mistakes in the past.  The Protestants did not suffer that type of self   
   inflicted lesson because they broke off at a time when reforms began to   
   be initiated.  The book burnings and things like the burning of the   
   library of Alexandria were done by the early church.  The anti   
   geocentric Catholic site that I cited in the past wanted to blame the   
   Protestants for getting the Pope to take action against Galileo.  It   
   wasn't just instigators within the church, but the Protestants were   
   claiming that enough was not being done to put down the heliocentric heresy.   
      
   If you read Mendel's genetics paper he has a statement in it where he   
   claims that his findings have evolutionary significance.  Mendel sent a   
   reprint to Darwin, but Darwin never read it.  At that time reprints were   
   folded over and bound in such a way that you had to cut the pages open   
   to read it.  Darwin's copy of Mendel's paper was found uncut among his   
   correspondence.  All kinds of people were likely sending Darwin their   
   papers, he just missed reading one of significance.  Being written in   
   German likely was an issue.  I wonder what Darwin would have done with   
   the notion.  He proposed a blending inheritance mechanism, but he   
   understood that, that just would not work.  Mendel would have given him   
   a method of inheritance where selectable traits were inherited intact   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)