He had more than enough evidence to be persuasive. What additional evidence would you require, if you were a contemporary of Galileo's, to accept the solar system? Please name something specific, that would have been a clincher.
The point is that he had plenty of evidence, and of course it was a revolutionary idea. So what? Why threaten him with torture, ban his book, and place him under house arrest for the remainder of his life? What if he had been a total goofball and said that the earth orbits Santa Clause? Then he would have had no evidence at all. Again, so what? He shouldn't have been persecuted. We all understand why the Church did what they did, but I hope we all understand that they were wrong in doing so. They recognize this now, so why can't you. Or do you?
Being that I am a historian and not an astronomer or physicist, I wouldn't know what evidence to produce. Given the history, doubt was removed when Newton developed his laws of planetary motion. Parallaxes work into it, something which was not observed until 1838 (Copernican theory holds that you would observe a shift when viewing a star, though supporters explained the lack of one as being that the stars were too far away to see). It was Newton's work, ultimately, that proved the heliocentric model.
Fact remains he couldn't provide the mathematical, physical, or observational PROOF necessary. He observed compelling evidence ("experimental evidence"), but the evidence he provided couldn't prove he was right--among the evidence, he said the tides were caused by the motion of the Earth (dismissing other evidence to the contrary); he said the orbits are circular, despite Kepler's work.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/
http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~hanes/p014/Notes/Topic_020.html#PART%209
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html
As for my personal feelings on the topic, obviously the Church was wrong in holding to steadfastly to the (incorrect) interpretation of Scripture. As a Modern Catholic, I can apprecaite that the Bible is a guide, not a end in an of itself. I agree with Galileo (and the modern Church)--the interpretation of the Bible is correct only insofar as it doesn't contradict what is scientifically proven; then, it is not the science that is faulty, but the interpretation. Cardinal Bellarmine said the same thing 400 years ago, but Galileo was unable to sufficiently prove that the interpretation was wrong as shown by science. Newton did that, and the Church should have corrected its position. I'm not sure what else you are looking for...