hanelyp wrote:Happyjack, Diogenes is saying that you're citing religious texts. And I agree with him on that.
i don't recall citing any religious texts. can you show me where i did?
i've been citing scientific studies well-backed by research and evidence. All which are reproducible and falsifiable.
To better understand how science differs from religion (and more generally, non-science), you can read up on what's called "the demarcation problem".
See for example Popper's demarcation criterion:
Falsifiability is the demarcation criterion proposed by Karl Popper as opposed to verificationism: "statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations". Popper saw demarcation as a central problem in the philosophy of science. Unlike the Vienna Circle, Popper stated that his proposal was not a criterion of "meaningfulness".
Popper's demarcation criterion has been criticized both for excluding legitimate science… and for giving some pseudosciences the status of being scientific… According to Larry Laudan (1983, 121), it "has the untoward consequence of countenancing as 'scientific' every crank claim which makes ascertainably false assertions". Astrology, rightly taken by Popper as an unusually clear example of a pseudoscience, has in fact been tested and thoroughly refuted… Similarly, the major threats to the scientific status of psychoanalysis, another of his major targets, do not come from claims that it is untestable but from claims that it has been tested and failed the tests.
— Sven Ove Hansson, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Science and Pseudo-Science"
In Popper's later work, he stated that falsifiability is both a necessary and a sufficient criterion for demarcation. He described falsifiability as a property of "the logical structure of sentences and classes of sentences," so that a statement's scientific or non-scientific status does not change over time. This has been summarized as a statement being falsifiable "if and only if it logically contradicts some (empirical) sentence that describes a logically possible event that it would be logically possible to observe."/quote]
--From wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcati ... ifiability
As I said, the images are visual representations of data collected by various instruments around the globe. As such, they clearly are "capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations".
For more on what differentiates science from religion, if you enjoy short videos (i do!), i highly recommend Feynamn explaining the scientific method:
As i've mentioned many times now, if you think any of the research or data is wrong, you are welcome to do your own empirical research and submit it for review. (The research and data that these images summarize are "capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations".)
i'd give you some papers but like i said there are millions, and new studies and measurements and what not are constantly being done. the articles i've linked to provide a decent starting point, though.
(EDITS: made a couple of edits...)