Slashdot Mirror
Do We Need Running Shoes To Run?
prostoalex writes to tell us The Daily Mail has an interesting look at current research in the field of running and injuries related to running. Most of the evidence pointed at a lack of any need for running shoes. Some of the more interesting points: the more expensive the running shoes, the greater the probability of getting an injury; some of the planet's best and most intense runners run barefoot; Stanford running team, having access to the top-notch modern shoes sent in for free by manufacturers, after a few rounds of trial and error still chose to train with no shoes at all."
Evolution didn't have Nike in mind.
Back in High School I remember seeing a girl nearly lose a toe to a sharp rock, it cut so deep it went right to the bone. Blood everywhere, shouting, etc.. As long as there are pointy things on the ground, I can risk a broken ankle. Yes, the whole "personal story proves nothing", but what should we learn from if not experience.
How do you kill that which has no life?
Thousands of years of evolution is better than a pair of shoes... Crazy talk!
Then I noticed that it's an extract from a book and some attached material which almost certainly came from the publisher too, as part of the promo. Thereby bypassing the Daily Mail's staff entirely and "ensuring quality".
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
people have said you can't run in ropers (cowboy boots), I've done it, almost as fast as in sneakers.
Hey! It doesn't count if you're rolling. ;-)
I am the lawn!
'Until 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet and had a much lower incidence of knee injuries.'
And football supposedly had a much lower incidence of injuries before the introduction of "pads" (which quickly became an offensive weapon allowing harder hits)
Of course, this could just be "numbers". Many of the running injuries treated today are repeat injuries. Prior to the invention of the running shoe was also pretty much prior to modern sports medicine, meaning a single injury would have prevented you from running again. Today's numbers may be higher than historical numbers due to the vast number of people who continue running after recovering from surgery to correct their problems.
John
... to see Olympic athletes run barefoot... better yet, bring back the original way of having the Olympics and have everyone go butt nekkid (of course we don't need to bring everything back of old where only men could compete).
The correct running technique - which can vary from runner to runner - is much more important than the type of shoes. Some running shoe brands claim that their shoes encourage and help do the right technique, but it really boils down to doing it by yourself.
The only point I see in running shoes is an certain amount of cushoning, since we tend to run on concrete quite a lot, allthough our type of pavements have only been around in recent history.
It's safe to say that most of the running shoes available are mostly snakeoil.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I'm 46 and I'm a casual runner. For years I had intermittent knee and hip pain during and after a 4-6 mile run. I finally broke down and spent more money ($90-$110) on good quality running shoes. The pain is gone. I can run 6 miles regularly with nothing but plain old muscle pain. I can tell when it is time to buy new shoes too. After a couple of hundred miles and the shoes lose their cushion, I can feel it when I run.
I imagine most running injuries are caused by a lack of wisdom rather than a lack of proper equipment.
I've run at least three miles a day. I've run one marathon and I am currently training for another. I've had multiple long runs that have exceeded twenty miles. At one point, I was running at least forty miles a week. I can tell you from my experience is that shoes make a huge difference. Once my shoe starts to go, I'll start to get intense pain in my hips and knees. Changes the shoe, and the pain goes away. It's a form issue in my case which the shoe helps to correct. I'm guessing those people who run barefoot have really good form. Take away my shoes and put me on a flat area without any rocks, I figure I might be able to run a few miles before I'm forced to stop because of knee or hip pain. I'll keep my shoes, thankyouverymuch.
... when a new runner starts to experience pain, the quickest remedy to buy new shoes.
No joke
Why is this news? For a start, it's hardly "new" that running barefoot decreases injuries and is, as a rule, better for you than running with trainers on. Here's some research from 2001, for example. And getting your science news from the Daily Mail is pretty much the UK equivalent of getting your science news from US weekly. It's not known as the Daily Fail (or The Daily (hate) Mail) for nothing...
I'm glad you pointed that out, I thought I was going mad. For those colonials out there, the Daily Mail doesn't have the best reputation for rational reporting. I'm suprised they didn't manage to blame running injuries on foriegners TBH.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
From the summary:
Isn't it possible that the more you run, or the more you get into running, that it is more likely you are going to purchase the more expensive running shoes? So that would seem to correlate mileage and expensive shoes, and it is possible there is a relationship between increased mileage and increase injuries.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
If you can walk and run comfortably in your shoes, and if your knees and back don't start to feel funny, the shoes are probably pretty good for your feet and style of walking and running.
You may want different shoes (or even slippers or thongs) for when you're sitting at your desk.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
I know you were being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but they've found that the appendix actually DOES have pretty good use: Here is a tech-minded summary, and here is the full article.
Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
Something TFA doesn't mention is that most people buy running shoes off the shelf based on silly considerations like colour, brand loyalty, whatever.
I was recommended a local sports shop where they look at your foot, watch you run on a treadmill, and ask you what kind of running you do (road, trail, track; distance; etc.). That leads to a shortlist of appropriate shoes, then you try those out on the treadmill, and eventually (in theory) leave with shoes that are right for you.
If you over-pronate, and you buy shoes designed for under-pronators, that's likely to lead to injury.
God, if he exists, must do so in a state of perfection that would be well beyond anything that we can easily recognize.
How do you know He can't be sloppy?
That is actually a very good point. Omnipotence must include the ability to be sloppy. It also proves that men are closer to God than women...
That sounds like the ceramic paved sidewalk out front of this apartment building.
Except for the slope part.
Cannot walk on that when it's wet, in any sort of shoes I can buy in Japan, without slipping. It's a lot like trying to walk on slippery ice.
Ice is one thing I don't care to walk barefoot on. A bed of nails is another.
To tell the truth, my knees and back would probably be in better shape if I hadn't gotten used to the partial buffering sneakers give. I've developed a really bad gait. I've tried to unlearn it, but I can't seem to find any sneakers with a good heal these days, and it's considered uncivilized to run around outside without shoes in Japan.
Oh. Tapeworms is another thing I don't want to walk on without shoes, although it's not as big a problem here in Japan as it was when they used to use unpasteurized fertilizer.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
I'm guessing the Stanford running team has access to spongy, soft tracks for training. I know I could run barefoot rather comfortably on a track made of cork or whatever that is.
Here's an anecdote... if we get another one then we have data :)
About half way through my first semester at uni, I was getting out of my car and my sneakers fell apart. I took them off, chucked them in the car, and went barefoot for the next 2 years or so (mostly - they don't let you into cinemas etc without shoes on :).
My feet got really tough, 40C days walking on hot tarmac didn't bother me (unless I stood still for too long). I never got stung by a bee, never had any major injuries. I would only notice small pieces of glass stuck in my foot by the noise they made on concrete when I stepped :)
I did quite a bit of walking too, 5km each way too and from uni when my car wasn't going, which was often.
Then the first joint on my big toe started hurting on one foot. A day or so later, the other big toe started hurting in the same way. It was like an ache that shot up each leg every time I took a step. I put some shoes on (workboots) and the pain went instantly. I didn't go barefoot for a few weeks, but the next time I tried both feet were aching within hours. Haven't gone barefoot since.
Now that was about 12 years ago so I may have some of the facts muddled up, but obviously going barefoot just wasn't for me. I didn't really do any running so it's not completely relevant to the topic, but I can't imagine that running would have been any kinder to my feet than walking.
Maybe shoes mimic the sort of ground that humans evolved around, vs the rock hard tarmac and concrete that I was doing most of my walking on?
Here's another good example of "correlation vs. causation." Extremely good runners have a very mechanically efficient stride and smooth foot action. Some of this is training, and some of it is related to how the feet and knees are aligned. Most people do not have perfect alignment. We will probably never become Olympic competitors or join the Stanford running team, but we can run for fun; I do the occasional road race, and I'm doing a triathlon next weekend.
Those of us who run for fun and who are not gifted with perfect alignment may overpronate or supinate our feet when we run. This action is less efficient, so we're less likely to be fast enough to join a college team. A small majority of people overpronate, somewhat less have a good neutral position, and a few people supinate. To look for overpronation, check out your old tennis shoes: if your shoes wear out first near the ball of the foot, chances are you're an overpronator. (If you have flat feet, you're also probably an overpronator. Try the "wet foot test": when you get out of the shower, step on a piece of paper and look at the prints you make.)
I'm a moderate overpronator, and shoes with a little extra cushion that compensate for my less-than-perfect foot position have kept my feet injury-free for five years.
Long time distance runner here. While running barefoot converts more of your energy into forward motion, shoes can protect us against those oh-so-prevalent sharp things on the ground. Granted if you run barefoot enough you will develop thicker skin, but (speaking from experience) I would still check the ground first before I ran barefoot on it. The last thing I need is to step on tiny shards of glass when training for a marathon. Ouch.
The article also spends little time discussing one big factor in the increase of running injuries: the surface on which most people run these days. Soft earth is infinitely more forgiving than asphalt, but due to its convenience asphalt/pavement is probably used the most. This leads to more running injuries as more and more runners are literally out in the streets, pounding their poor feet on a surface that doesn't give.
df -h
I've been a runner, someone who runs/jogs for the majority of my exercise, since I was a kid. I've always viewed shoes as a means of protection 1st and foremost.
Over the years I've had many different shoes that I've run in. And have always preferred running shoes that are light and broken in. The worst shoes that I ever run in are always the new ones that try to make my feet contort into ways that they aren't naturally.
Once a shoe gets to the point where they are more like my feet than like the way the shoe started as they work best.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
There has been some research (reg.req.) on the benefits of barefoot running. BUt, the article also mentions having to pull glass from your foot... I've tried running barefoot once, on the beach, but wouldn't dare doing it on my standard run through the city. Does anyone here have any experience with the ultra thin Five Fingers running shoes (basically protective gloves around your feet)? Sure, you look like a dick -- almost as bad as Crocs -- but they appear a great alternative.
Everyone has a different body, gait, etc.
It should be no surprise that what works for some might not work for you.
I think the main point here is that barefoot is an option and that folks should actually try out different footwear before assuming the most expensive is the best.
Coincidentally, I recently asked a marathon runner at work if i should buy proper shoes for jogging instead of flat soled skateboarding shoes. He told me the exact same thing stated here, different shoes are to prevent injuries. If you have no pain in your current shoes then there is no real reason to switch.
I'm no runner, I'm more into downhill skiing. Equipment does play a huge role, from shoes to skis to how you set it up. Yet you would not put the same equipment on an inexperienced person just learning that an expert uses. First, the size of your skis. You couldn't turn my skis if you're new to the sport, they're just too long and too clumsy for you. An accident is almost inevitable. My shoes, you wouldn't want them, they kill you and take away any kind of feeling or movement you might still have. The way I set my binding would certainly mean a torn lingament to you when you hit the ground because it would not open.
I can only assume it is the same with running equipment. I guess, when I use the equipment of someone who has the muscles and sinews of an experienced runner, I'd sooner or later twist my ankle (because frankly, my ankle stability is close to nonexistant compared to the rest of my foot), and I'd probably end up with really bad knees because I wouldn't know how to run in those things sensibly to handle the shock, something that, again I assume, an experienced runner can easily handle.
There is ski equipment, good equipment actually, available to people who are new to the sport. They don't give you top speed or handling, but they are quite forgiving and they do "cushion" you a lot and keep you from being injured. I can only assume it could be the same for other sports, including running.
So my guess would be that, as someone new to running, you'd probably need equipment that helps you avoid injury rather than equipment that "makes you good". At least, well, that's what I'd want when I start with a sport. I certainly don't want a Formula 1 car to learn driving, the chances to kill myself are just a wee bit too high.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You're missing the next page where Daily Mail service returns to normal; an analysis of how running barefoot may affect your property value, how sponging benefit cheats are given your money to spend on fancy sport shoes, and a reconstruction of how lovely and dainty Diana's feet would have looked, had she not been forced to wear shoes by evil Charles.
http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/
From the article:
"Then there's the secretive Tarahumara tribe, the best long-distance runners in the world. These are a people who live in basic conditions in Mexico, often in caves without running water, and run with only strips of old tyre or leather thongs strapped to the bottom of their feet. They are virtually barefoot."
Virtually barefoot. Which is to say not barefoot at all. These 'best runners in the world' have decided that they need footwear.
Cheers,
Ian
Good for Stanford, run barefoot all you want. A good pair of shoes allows me to run with less pain in my Achilles tendon. Since no one else needs, them, I feel kind of special: A multi-billion dollar industry is targeted directly at me.
First, I think the relationship between running injuries and shoes might be reversed. There's a group of people called overpronates who are prone to injuries and need "control" or "stability" shoes. Those shoes are among the most expensive. I have a mild case of it; my arches look flat from a distance but leave normal looking prints behind. My shoes have more padding than normal to help that. I also have orthodics to help more. The combination of both have basically stopped me from getting shin splints. I have had that problem in nearly two years, despite upping my mileage more than 100% over that period of time.
Second, from what I've read the Stanford track team, who inspired the Nike Free shoes, run bare foot but only once a week. They don't practice all the time that way. They also run it on grass.
The argument for running barefoot is compelling though and it's something I want to try some day, perhaps starting with something like Nike Free. Also, I'm not sure how well that carries over to distance running that I do. One of the benefits of barefoot running is that you tend to land the ball of your feet. However, long distance running tend to involve more heel striking with short, low strides. I might do what the Stanford track team does, which is to mix it in but for shorter distances.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
I say no, especially for me. I constantly had problems from walking and running until I read the book, "The Maffetone Method" by Phillip Maffetone. (Maffetone trains bicycle racers and super-long-distance runners. Stuart Mittleman, the holder of the record for the 1000-mile run, was one of his clients.) The two things I changed as a result of reading his book were:
1. I changed to low-cut Converse All Stars, and
2. I went on a low-carb diet. (I gained 40 lbs in four years on a low-fat diet. Maffetone hypothesized that some people were carbohydrate sensitive and suggested that trying a low-carb diet might work better for those people.)
The end result was that I lost 20 lbs in two years, and my legs and hips quit hurting almost immediately.
Check this link http://books.google.com/books?id=1ehUeFPfch0C&dq=Philip+Maffetone&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=PMPtSa-HJKb0MvqC0AI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA62,M1 for excerpts from his book, "Fix your Feet, and click on the "Picking the right shoe" entry in the TOC.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
"Despite pillowy-sounding names such as 'MegaBounce', all that cushioning does nothing to reduce impact. Logically, that should be obvious - the impact on your legs from running can be up to 12 times your weight, so it's preposterous to believe a half-inch of rubber is going to make a difference." Hmm. The padding in my bike gear is a lot less than the thinkness of my running shoe soles, yet I'm fairly certain that it is proven to significantly reduce impact forces. Its one thing to say that padding is not a good thing, but to suggest it does nothing seems a bit far fetched.
Yes and no.
Only a woman would write the bible to be that thick.
If God was a man, the bible would be a tri fold pamphlet with pictures of boobies on at least 30% of it to keep our attention..
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
First of all, when our first child was around the age where she started learning to walk, a nurse told us we should not make her wear shoes, at least not regularly. If a kid has shoes on while learning to walk, that can cause serious imbalances in muscle/ligature/bone buildup, leading to damage in them. This was just something the nurse had reasoned out based on other experience about things that are natural.
Add to that the fact that industrial manufacturing can hardly adjust for individual differences. Even the best shoes, if industrially manufactured, are not made to measure. Expensive is just fashionable - but sloppily designed - as often as high quality.
Our muscles were designed to work, to move - however that design came about. From a certain point of view, a law of physics can be considered a design. Randomness also. Let's just try to learn as many as we can about them without inferring things that are not necessarily even related.
Every problem has a solution that is simple, easy and wrong. Selling our Liberty for a little Security is a much too de
I took up first fast-walking and then running after many (MANY) years of near-zero activity, grossly overweight (almost 140Kg). Of course, my body was quite over what evolution anticipated - I have a weak ankle which bended from time to time (now, 40Kg slimmer, much less often and much less painfully). Of course, I didn't buy top-of-the-line running shoes, only a pair of decently resistant, well-formed jogging shoes. I would not have done it without them.
On the other extreme, we have high-performance runners - Be it my marathonist/ultramarathonists friends, be it the speed runners. Once again, evolution provided us with strong skin soles, but not strong enough to endure a 100m race in ~10 seconds (I still cannot believe a human can do that). It provided us with strong skin, but not strong enough to endure 40Km. And there are humans doing it - Take away their shoes, and they will really suffer.
Hell, same goes for regular shoes for moving in a city at a calm pace... I like wearing sandals, but I really don't like somebody stepping over me barefooted. And as I often go into people-crammed places (think of, say, the subway), I prefer wearing regular shoes. Odds are I will suffer less, even if I don't really really need them for my day-to-day activities.
Of course men are closer to God, he made women out of spare parts
I think it's more like the female chose her mate by who ever hit her over the head and dragged her back to his cave.
This method had failed me since the advent of pepper spray.
Trolling is a art,
If God was a man, the bible would be a tri fold pamphlet with pictures of boobies on at least 30% of it to keep our attention..
Have you ever read it? There's just enough sex and violence to keep you interested for most of it.
So ... actively scanning the skies for signals, running them through algorithms, trying to show that the signals carry more meaning than could normally be expected from "background noise", then trying to find any other explanations for this apparent "design" (as I recall, SETI's biggest hits have actually been in the signal analysis of oddball stars?), and in the end only looking at it as "data from another lifeform" when nothing else fits the bill ... you're right. That very last step may seem non-scientific -- but it's actually just a hypothesis that they then intend to test, if it ever happens, by beaming back signals and attempting verifiable, testable communication. This is different from just receiving the signal, analyzing it, deciding that it's from someone, interpreting it in one way or another (with no reproducible method to prove that it's the right interpretation) and then acting on the results and trying to force others to act on it too ... that's religion.
But, those with flat feet, in need of arch support, could still benefit from good shoes...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Maybe if we attached some kind of protective surface on the feets, and then strapped said surface around the foot to hold it in place
Soft-sole moccasins work.
eventually with some stabilizing technology so it wouldn't wobble
And that's where the trainers fail it.
If I wouldn't be so embarrassed by it, I would post a youtube video of myself with and without anti-pronation running shoes... it's horrible!
The switch caused me to use slightly different muscles during running and I backtracked on pace for a while, but I'm able to run much,
much longer now and without knee pain.
Prior to my military stay I trained barefoot on old, broken city sidewalks. Never had a single injury. After joining I trained in boots. Again, no injury. Until I was issued a pair too narrow. It caused a pinched nerve in my foot. The right size fixed that. Once assigned to a unit, for our daily PT/run we had to wear running shoes. The frequent high impact without adequate protection caused the pinched nerve to flair up. It had to be removed, leaving the facing halves of two toes numb. The end of the nerve formed an inoperable stump, causing a permanent condition just like the injured nerve. It is a minor but permanent part of my service connected disability. "Minor" to the tune of $100+ a month for the rest of my life. Those running shoes are proving to be very expensive to US taxpayers. I can still run in hard soles, including my $10 all plastic Chinese cowboy boot knock offs.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Well, possibly for people with normal/good feet.
But, those with flat feet, in need of arch support, could still benefit from good shoes...
Exactly, if you are an athlete runner you have to learn the proper biomechanical motions or you will rip yourself apart. Once you do, well, it's what your body was built for. But for those of us who run seldomly or who have previoulsy injured ankles or knees it's painfully obvious how a running shoe is a lot easier to run in. I don't need a study to tell me that I've done my own definitve study on myself.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The ID argument, as I've seen it, requires a designer that wasn't designed by another designer, but if that un-designed designer was natural, then there's no reason that we couldn't be un-designed by the same argument. Therefore, the designer must be supernatural.
You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down.
Two guys were hiking through the jungle when they spotted a tiger who looked both hungry and fast. One of the guys reached into his pack and pulled out a pair of tennis shoes. His friend looked at him "Do you really think those shoes are going to make you run faster than that tiger?" I don't have to run faster than that tiger, his friend replied. "I just have to run faster than you".
Bark less. Wag more.
Wow, when she said she was going to tell you that she was "out running", I really didn't think you would believe it.
I'm rather curious which is better, because you didn't specify in your post, and the difference sounds dramatic.
I'm in the 1 percent (aparently) that walks on the outside of the foot, and I tend to end up sliding onto my outside ancle if I'm taking corners a bit too fast. Always beeen curious if that'd be better with corrective shoes
Yes, but this surely presupposes that there are no observable phenomena with unobservable causes?
I confess I'm not remotely an expert in the field, but my interested observer perception is of a bootstrap problem in pretty much all scenarios. If we believe all matter was formed in a Big Bang of which we detect traces that match current hypothesese, what was the cause of the Big Bang event? I love and value science, but am deeply uncomfortable with the quasi-religious assertions from some that if it can't be measured then it isn't real. We've learnt to measure a great many things which we previously couldn't.
In all honesty though, if you wish to oppose intelligent design, let it be taught. The underground, opposed, rebel argument that They don't want you to hear will always have power - if you honestly believe it's rubbish, teach its tenets and then teach why you believe they don't match the data. If you're a good teacher with good information and the students are intellectually up to the argument, they'll likely agree and the rest weren't likely to have their minds changed either way in any case.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
the shoes with separate toes are found at http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/ This is as close as you can get to running barefoot without running barefoot.
Think global, act loco
Let me start off by saying I was a runner in High school. Fast enough to make the Olympic sprint team for some countries but a little below average in Jamaica.
Not only did we find shoos necessary, we had to pick them according to the terrain.
Thick soft soles for running on Roads. Long spikes for running on grass, Shorter spikes for running on the rubber based surface at the Stadium.
Once you got to boys who ran at close to the same speed, wearing the wrong shoos or running barefoot would virtually guarantee defeat.
The reason is skidding. Basically: The soles of our feet were relatively smooth, so at each stride we would slide a little. The direction and scope of the slide varied with each stride and you expend so much effort just trying to remain upright your speed over the 100M drops by as much as a second.
With Long distance and running shoos and cross trainers (I am less of an expert here). Where the problems come in is probably a lack of understanding of what each shoe is designed for. While this is bad with running shoos it was most glaringly obvious with Basketball shoos. The high end (and price) shoos were made for use on a cushioned wooden surface, polished to a mirror finish. Guess what happens when you wear that onto a Rough asfoult court?
I'm just betting that expensive cross trainers "fail" for the same reason. I.e. People buy $200 shoos that are only good on a treadmill and try to go cross country.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
SETI is based on a scientific hypothesis: "Given the number of stars and planets in the universe, it is statistically likely that intelligent life has developed on planets other than Earth." SETI itself is merely attempting to gather data in support of this hypothesis. The hypothesis is provable (If aliens land on the planet tomorrow, it would be proven; if we find the functional equivalent of TV signals in our observation of interstellar waves it would be proven; if we land on Alpha Centari in 200 year and find primitive lizard men carrying crystal tipped spears it would be proven; etc), and SETI is one attempt to gather data which might prove it. No one at SETI is making an absolute declaration that "Intelligent life absolutely exists in the universe and even though we've never found any hard evidence, we've proved it." They have a theory, and they are gathering evidence in support of that theory.
In contrast, Intelligent Design advocates are taking a gap in knowledge and declaring it "proof" of some other knowledge. What they're saying is "Because we cannot figure out how 'x' happened, it must be proof that some outside force or being made it happen." First of all, this is an unprovable hypothesis. Even if a being showed up tomorrow and claimed to be God, and demonstrated phenomenal cosmic powers, there is no way to be sure that this being was or was not THE designer, as opposed to something that perhaps has enough power to have done it (I doubt there are any measurement units of Earth that could comprehend whether a being actually has "limitless power" or "apparently limitless power"). Secondly the methodology is flawed. The equivalent with SETI would be a researcher discovering an anomalous unexplained signal, and unilaterally declaring it proof of the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence without first attempting to understand the origin of the signal, whether it has any intelligent pattern or looking at other theories.
Absence of an explanation for a phenomenon does not constitute proof of the explanation you're currently trying to sell. Just because primitive man didn't understand how gravity works, doesn't mean that they would have been correct to assume that there are giant suckerfish under the ground constantly inhaling to keep us all tied to the Earth. A divine being wandering about changing reality at his or her whim might constitute evidence for a supreme creator (though not definitive proof, it could be a different divine being for all we know), but a lack of explanation for certain phenomenon does not.
Having said all of that, I believe that there are beings and forces that exist outside of what we consider "nature". Since I can't defend those beliefs via repeatable experiments or hard evidence I don't present them as "science" or try to teach them in "science class". You can HAVE religious or other superstitious beliefs without insisting that those beliefs be taught as facts. If you want to believe that the world was created, or that there is a supreme intelligence guiding its development, by all means do. Just don't try to present those beliefs as if they were provable facts.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
I slept but my heart was awake.
Listen! My lover is knocking:
"Open to me, my sister, my darling,
my dove, my flawless one.
My head is drenched with dew,
my hair with the dampness of the night."
I have taken off my robe--
must I put it on again?
I have washed my feet--
must I soil them again?
My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening;
my heart began to pound for him.
Song of Solomon 5:2-4 (NIV)
I'm sure it loses something in translation.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
You're conflating "supernatural" with "religious." Why? The existence of a supernatural designer doesn't imply anything about its nature, or whether it should be worshipped. Merely being outside of our current scientific understanding of nature is not sufficient to make a thing religious.
Suse vivo vixi victum reduco is ea id creatura absit decessus a facultas Linux! Dev root, dev root!
What was there before the Big Bang? Researchers don't know, and right now no one has figured out how to make experiments to test any theories on the idea.
But there are hypothesis about the Big Bang itself and experimental evidence to suggest they are true. The universe is expanding, all of the galaxies are moving away from one central starting point. That has data to back it up. There are certainly gaps in the knowledge, and a lot more to learn. But it fits all of the information we have at present.
Intelligent Design cannot be verified by experiments. There's no way you can prove or disprove it. And why did the Intelligence give men nipples? Why did the Intelligence give men and women Appendixes? Why did the Intelligent Designer design mosquitoes, malaria, smallpox, scarlet fever, autism, spina biffida, mumps, and leprosy? You can explain all of those things with current evolution theory. You can't explain them with Intelligent Design, unless maybe God likes LSD.
And of course, many reasonable Christians, Muslims, Jews, and so forth take the logical view that God created evolution and the Big Bang, or whatever the real beginning of the universe was.
I humbly submit that shoes are man's greatest invention. Just ask Tom Hanks' character in Castaway. If you were isolated and could only have one "invention", what else would it be? A house you can never leave? A fire you can not bring food to? Shoes allowed us to gather more food and all our other great ideas came from the leisure time that afforded us. I could get by without a car, or without fire, but I would be utterly miserable without shoes. I wouldn't last one day in the winter. Sure, I enjoy a good barefoot walk on the beach, but without shoes you can't even go into a store to buy groceries.
Have you ever read any Greek mythology?
I'm not sure if I can take advice about shoes from somebody who spells it shoos.
Anyway, the article is about shoes increasing injury rates, not about whether shoes make you run faster or whether it's easier to run on grass with certain shoes. The fact is that it's easier on the feet, ankles, legs, and back to run barefoot.
No existe.