[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Why should the Church have to prove that which had been accepted and "proven" for nearly 1500 years?"

You are requiring a much higher standard of evidence for Galileo than you required of the Church.

"The burden of proof was on Galileo, as he was challenging the scientific standard."

And he provided that evidence. He showed that the Earth could move. The reason the Church rejected the evidence was because it clashed with their theology. They used their ability to threaten force to *persuade* Galileo to recant.

[jcb8199]

That it clashed with their theology is secondary to the fact that the accepted, "proven" fact was that the Earth didn't move; the Church didn't say that, SCIENCE said that and the Church read the Bible in such a way that they agreed. Ptolemy worked in the 2nd century AD, when it was still illegal, in the Roman empire, to be Christian. So for the next 150 years or so, scientists agreed; then the Catholic Church was given official recognition and became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Then, more than 1200 years later, after nearly 1500 years of accepted SCIENTIFIC "fact," Galileo said the Earth moved, and provided compelling evidence (but not FINAL evidence).

What more needs be said? I keep exhorting you to look at this from the historical perspective--when will you?