As another poster said, his ideas lead to the necessity of only one high tide at noon, and we know that isn't true
Both sides had no explanation for tides. This is not a difference in the quality of the theories, no predictive or explanatory power on either side.
His idea of the motion of the planets still relied on epicycles to explain why they appeared to move forward then backwards then forwards again throughout the year because he was stuck on perfectly circular orbits.
Again: Both theories are wrong; Galileo's is arguably closer to the truth.
Geocentricism certainly wasn't right, but its predictive power was better than Galileo's ideas.
Galileo's observed that Venus exhibited a full set of phases in clear violation of Ptolemy's geocentric model. His discovery of a couple of Jupiter's moons proofed that not all heavenly bodies orbit the earth. These are some examples for Galileo's theory being superior to geocentrism. Can you name a concrete example, where the church's geocentric model actually did better than Galileo's ideas?
There's nothing 'wrong' or unscientific about disagreeing with Galileo, because Galileo was wrong.
I agree. But to reject it because it is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." is wrong an unscientific. Again: I'm not arguing that Galileo was right. With todays knowledge it is easy to see how wrong he was.