I didn't begrudgingly agree to anything, and I'm not, nor have I ever defended the man. I have specifically and explicitly addressed your assertions. Right now I'm disputing what you are attributing to me. My point was that your entire argument rests on a very specific interpretation of Galileo's statement. In the first instance I made the argument that when you examine the context of the original statement your interpretation of Galileo's statement appears to be wrong. In the second instance I made the point that your argument takes the statement outside of the domain within which it is regarded relevant and therefore can not be used to comment on whether or not it is valid. I've given two examples of this: If I examine mammals in one region and state "all mammals in this region are cats", then does finding dogs in another region invalidate my original statement? Of course not. If I make the statement "If A is true, and B is true, then C is also true" and you then prove that "When A is false or B is false, then C is also false" does that disprove my original statement? Of course not.