And how do you know what the truth is for a fact?
Galileo lived hunderds of years before you were born. All we got to go on are theories made by historians, which are based on written records. And we all know you got conflicting writing on practicely anything these days and people who wrote them were not 100% objective either. The same holds true for earlier writing of men. I bet you'd find plenty of historians who have different theories - one that is accepted the most by the people and historians becomes the official version. Doesn't mean it's correct.
I'd take everything on conservapedia with a grain of salt. But then again I'd take everything from wikipedia, or any other source also with a grain of salt.
Also keep in mind that even in fairy tales or lies, there is a grain of truth somewhere. However what the truth is - I have no idea. That's why I won't go yelling at either version.
Ok guys, I'm sorry, I really did try to skip over this but I just HAVE to point out the obvious.
TrashMan, the reason we know how the whole Gallileo escapade went down is because the Vatican trains some of the best record-keepers in the world, and we actually still have written records dating back to that time period in the Vatican's possession as well as in the written records of Gallileo's contemporaries. Very little of the whole affair is theopyr (in fact, almost none of it). The written works are biased by their authors and are not an exact historical record, but by comparing accounts from many different sources we can arrive at a very close approximation of what actually happened - which is nothing like what the Conservapedia article has to say on the subject.
So argue all you like, but the historical records do still exist and they aren't "just theory."
