Customer Discussions > Science forum

A Hypothesis Favoring the Existence of a Creator


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 72 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 13, 2010 7:04:49 AM PDT
Anonymous says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2010 3:11:21 PM PDT
If you're referring to vague reference to Hawking in the article; Hawking has been wrong before.

In this case, its untestable, even as a thought experiment.

Posted on Jul 17, 2010 3:08:16 AM PDT
While the thread posted has a certain comedic value, most people will not realise the subtlety of the parody caused by the twisted use of logic and the multiple logical fallacies.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2010 4:18:55 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2010 4:21:31 AM PDT
The writer lost me when I got to what the "White West" needs to do. I kept reading though, because I suspected it would get even stranger. It did.

"The multiverse hypothesis is intended to make cosmology the new opiate of the masses"

We're rapidly approaching crazy.

"There is a sense in which the multiverse hypothesis is really the mechanistic atheist's heaven. Every possible event has happened, is happening, or will happen in every possible combination:"

No, not in any sense whatsoever. When discussing torture, it's of absolutely no consolation to me that there may be another universe where this person is NOT being tortured, or being held indefinitely without trial. Even on a more prosaic level, no one takes comfort in times of tragedy by contemplating alternate universes where a loved one didn't die in a car wreck, or get cancer. Because even if that universe DID exist, there would be yet more universes where they were being tortured by a serial killer, or killed by a brain parasite, or any number of other horrible outcomes. There is nothing comforting about the multiverse theory.

"Darwinism/methodological naturalism states that given enough time, mechanism can bring about life/sentience/consciousness."

Evolution does not address abiogenesis. The author is basically just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it'll stick. And apparently, it stuck to you just fine.

"the multiverse hypothesis purportedly eliminates the need for an intelligent Creator"

We didn't need an "intelligent creator" *before* the multiverse theory, either.

"Occam's razor suggests the following conclu­sion: the Big Bang was a seed."

Occam's razor entails eliminating extraneous explanations, not adding them. The author is flatly contradicting the argument he is trying to use.

"The laws of thermodynamics support the fol­lowing conclusion: this "Big Seed" required prior intelligence."

This is nonsense.

"Aristotle's un­moved Mover, the Mind of God - the Creator. "

Aristotle believed in an eternal universe. The prime mover was the one that moved the spheres containing the stars and planets.

"he Big Bang was not a random expansion of space-time matter-energy"

No one said it was. Explosions are subject to regularities imposed by physics and chemistry, which come from the properties of extant matter and energy.

And then we get to "An Excerpt from "The Declaration of White Independence"

Wow. Did you actually read this before you posted it? Seriously?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2010 6:36:57 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 7, 2011 11:16:57 AM PDT]

Posted on Jul 17, 2010 6:45:27 AM PDT
A. Caplan says:
The article starts with a generally accepted historical lie when it says, "It was once thought that the Earth was flat." The question is, "by whom?" The Chinese and Japanese, for example, always realized that the earth was round. The ancient Greeks measured the circumference of the earth as well as proposed the heliocentric solar system. The article goes down from there for the reasons given in the previous posts.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2010 6:48:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2010 6:49:43 AM PDT
RR says:
"A Hypothesis Favoring the Existence of a Creator:"

More evidence for FSM! Only someone very, very drunk could offer such insight! Obviously, a direct transmission from His Noodliness.

Posted on Jul 17, 2010 7:00:31 AM PDT
The fact that something exists rather than nothing makes me postulate that a Creator possibly exists.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2010 7:18:50 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 7, 2011 11:16:58 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2010 7:30:29 AM PDT
RR says:
Stephan,
"The fact that something exists rather than nothing makes me postulate that a Creator possibly exists."

That's simply an argument from incredulity.

I could just as well say, The fact that something must have always existed makes me postulate that no creator is required.

We have no evidence of a moment of creation of matter. We simply have a moment in which a plasma already in existence, started to expand.

Posted on Jul 17, 2010 7:58:07 AM PDT
Anonymous says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2010 11:54:49 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2010 11:57:18 AM PDT
Anon - "Cherry picking, straw man arguments, and non sequiturs aren't the same things as thinking. "

Then why are you cherry-picking physicist quotes that you think support your conclusion? That a given physicist thinks the universe looks fine-tuned doesn't constitute an argument. I don't need an "alternative" to an "intelligent creator," because "intelligent creator" is no more of an explanation than "it was magic." The bare fact is that scientists *don't know* that much about the fundamental nature of the universe, nor its origin, nor even if it *had* an origin. We know that it exists, and everything else is conjecture. Sure, you can cherry-pick some quote from someone that you thinks agrees with you, but that doesn't mean much. Cosmology is intensely speculative. We just don't know enough to make bold, sweeping pronouncements. This whole "science can't explain everything, so God exists" thing is a stupid, vacuous argument. Ignorance is not a theological argument.

None of this addresses why you posted a link to a white-supremacist, whack-job screed in the first place. Maybe I'm being overly charitable, but the vibe I get is not that you're a white-supremacist whack-job, but that you just look over stuff real quick to see if it sort of lends a scientific patina to your belief in God, and if so you just post it. If I gave you 500 physics articles showing that the world does *not* look designed, you'd be completely apathetic. But even one physicist who says "hmm, this looks designed" constitutes hard proof, and everyone else is stupid or in denial if they don't immediately accept Jesus. We have a term for this sort of stuff--lying for Jesus. The lie in this case is pretending that you're moved by science, rather than just quote-mining something to suit the conclusion you already had. But hey, I could be wrong--you really COULD believe the white-supremacist dreck you linked to earlier.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2010 1:47:31 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Anonymous said:
"A Hypothesis Favoring the Existence of a Creator:
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=62378";

You should remain anonymous so that people don't associate you with this nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2010 1:48:59 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Anonymous said:
"Cherry picking, straw man arguments, and non sequiturs aren't the same things as thinking."

Funny, I was just about to say that about your article.

BTW, you should find out what a hypothesis is if you are going to use it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2010 2:32:15 PM PDT
Anonymous says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2010 3:21:10 PM PDT
Deckard says:
Anonymous said:
"I'm sure the physicist in question would be amazed to hear that; the physicist is saying that if there's no multiverse, then an intelligent creator might be the most plausible explanation for the emergence of the universe. Perhaps you should read the article."

Just like people used to think that a god was the most plausible explanation for weather, disease, earthquakes, etc., etc. How many times that have to be dis-proven before it stops being a hypothesis?

"Want more? Here's a preeminent contemporary philosopher: There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind"

It is very clear that this book was essentially ghost-written by people who wanted to exploit Flew's name. Lies written in the name of religion are still lies.

"But you don't care, because anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions gets dumped on and jettisoned."

You just don't get it, do it? It is religion that gives you pre-conceived notions.

"Ignorance is not an argument at all. This whole ignorance/incredulity position that materialists use is pure hypocrisy.
1. The universe exhibits order and complexity.
2. It would be too fantastic and incredible to believe that this order and complexity could have arisen spontaneously on its own accord.
3. Therefore, this order and complexity is the result of a prior intelligence."

What a joke. The basis of your argument is that it "would be too fantastic and incredible"! Apparently you are too ignorant to realize that's an argument from ignorance.

Posted on Jul 18, 2010 3:23:06 PM PDT
A. Caplan says:
There is no hypothesis or null hypothesis stated in the article nor is any test proposed to test the hypothesis. Calling the multiverse theory the new opiate of the people is not as a scientific argument against it validity. If fact there are no scientific arguments at all in the article.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2010 10:21:46 AM PDT
Anonymous says:
RIP: Just like people used to think that a god was the most plausible explanation for weather, disease, earthquakes, etc., etc. How many times that have [sic] to be dis-proven [sic] before it stops being a hypothesis?

This is a non sequitur: it does absolutely NOTHING to disprove that a prior intelligence is the cause of the emergence of the visible universe.

............

RIP: It is very clear that this book was essentially ghost-written by people who wanted to exploit Flew's name. Lies written in the name of religion are still lies.

Flew's book was ghostwritten? PROVE IT. Lies written in the name of neo-Darwinism are still lies.

............

RIP: You just don't get it, do it? [sic] It is religion that gives you pre-conceived [sic] notions.

You just don't get it, do you? It is evolutionism that gives you preconceived notions. Do you do know the difference between evolution and evolutionism?

............

RIP: What a joke. The basis of your argument is that it "would be too fantastic and incredible"! Apparently you are too ignorant to realize that's an argument from ignorance.

The joke's on YOU; you're so blind to your own obnoxious, arrogant, self-righteous bias that you can't even see it. Do you know what "juxtaposition" means? I juxtaposed the following two arguments to show that they're BOTH specious:

A.
1. The universe exhibits order and complexity.
2. It would be too fantastic and incredible to believe that this order and complexity could have arisen spontaneously on its own accord.
3. Therefore, this order and complexity is the result of a prior intelligence.

B.
1. The universe exhibits order and complexity.
2. It would be too fantastic and incredible to believe that this order and complexity could have arisen by a prior intelligence.
3. Therefore, this order and complexity is the result of randomness.

You totally ignore argument "B" because it serves your prior commitment and because it furthers your preconceived notions. You focus on and attack argument "A" because it doesn't serve your prior commitment and because it doesn't further your preconceived notions.

The truth is BOTH arguments are specious. The fact that you attack the one and ignore the other PROVES that you are not interested in logic, truth, and reason. This illustrates your self-serving hypocrisy and your ignorance. Apparently YOU'RE too ignorant to realize that YOU'RE ignorant.

Here's something for you to mull over, Rip:

"It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate."

http://journals.witpress.com/pages/paperinfo.asp?PaperID=420&jID=19&vn=4&in=4

I use logic and reason, and I back it up. All you do is shoot from the hip, spout ignorance, and name-call.

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

So guess what, Rip: THE JOKE'S ON YOU.

............

A. Caplan: There is no hypothesis or null hypothesis stated in the article nor is any test proposed to test the hypothesis.

The multiverse hypothesis is an untestable, question-begging supposition: PROVE OTHERWISE; if the notion of a multiverse qualifies as a hypothesis, then so does the notion that a prior intelligence is responsible for the emergence of the visible universe. I used the word "hypothesis" is a perfectly sound, legitimate way; if you don't like it, that's YOUR problem - not mine:

"It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate."

http://journals.witpress.com/pages/paperinfo.asp?PaperID=420&jID=19&vn=4&in=4

............

A. Caplan: Calling the multiverse theory the new opiate of the people is not as a scientific argument against it validity.

So what? The multiverse hypothesis is an untestable, question-begging supposition: PROVE OTHERWISE.

............

A. Caplan: If [sic] fact there are no scientific arguments at all in the article.

In fact there are. Read the article again in light of the below:

"It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate."

http://journals.witpress.com/pages/paperinfo.asp?PaperID=420&jID=19&vn=4&in=4

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2010 10:32:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 20, 2010 10:34:16 AM PDT
I hate to see Alexander Solzhenitsyn cited by a racist and anti-Semite; not that his citations seem to have anything to do with the racist parts of the linked article.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2010 11:12:21 AM PDT
Anonymous says:
DM: I hate to see Alexander Solzhenitsyn cited by a racist and anti-Semite; not that his citations seem to have anything to do with the racist parts of the linked article.

How about responding to my most recent post instead of taking cheap shots? You seem to have no respect for people who disagree with you. You really ought to define your terms. The fact is this: I don't hate anybody, with one exception: supremacists of ANY kind - Brown, Black, White, Yellow, Red, or Green. I DO hate THEM - ALL of them.

I advocate the survival and advancement of ALL the Peoples of humanity. I believe that ALL the Peoples of mankind are the result of a "special facet of divine intention," as Solzhenitsyn says:

"In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention."

You can't beat me so you smear me, eh? Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your forte. If name-calling is all you've got, then you've got nothing. If you'd like to debate me, start a new discussion in a relevant subject area. I'll be happy to meet you there.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, ignorant, self-righteous name-calling doesn't intimidate me in the least bit.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2010 11:35:58 AM PDT
Mystére says:
Anon, you keep citing "The Signature in the Cell" as though it is some kind of last word about proof of a "designer." Meyer is part of the Discovery Institute, founded and dedicated to putting religion in public schools by falsely asserting that ID is science. The Wedge Document shows its political motivations.

Anonymous says: "I use logic and reason, and I back it up."

You do none of the above.

Gary Hurd posted a refutation of "Signature" from a Christian last month. I hope he will forgive me re-posting his earlier post.

Last edited by the author on June 27, 2010 7:31 AM PDT
Gary S. Hurd says:
"it finally gives Proof to the science community."

Ms. Stahlka, I have read Meyer's book. It will fool nobody with an education in the sciences. It will fool the willfully ignorant.

For an extended critique written by a knowledgeable Christian, I suggest reading these posts by biologist Steve Matheson*:
Start here:
http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/01/signature-in-cell-chapter-1.html

Or use the search string for all 15:
http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/search/label/Signature%20in%20the%20Cell

* Associate Professor of Biology, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan
# Reformed Christian
# Developmental cell biologist
# Evolutionist

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2010 11:49:17 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 20, 2010 11:51:27 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Anonymous said:
RIP: Just like people used to think that a god was the most plausible explanation for weather, disease, earthquakes, etc., etc. How many times that have [sic] to be dis-proven [sic] before it stops being a hypothesis?

ANON:This is a non sequitur: it does absolutely NOTHING to disprove that a prior intelligence is the cause of the emergence of the visible universe.

Typical creo claptrap. I didn't say anything about disproving anything - I said that your hypothesis has failed over and over and asked when it stops being a usable hypothesis.

RIP: It is very clear that this book was essentially ghost-written by people who wanted to exploit Flew's name. Lies written in the name of religion are still lies.

ANON:Flew's book was ghostwritten? PROVE IT. Lies written in the name of neo-Darwinism are still lies.

Go read any coherent review of the book. The writing style is not Flew's, and in interviews about the book he barely knew anything about it.

RIP: You just don't get it, do it? [sic] It is religion that gives you pre-conceived [sic] notions.

ANON:You just don't get it, do you? It is evolutionism that gives you preconceived notions. Do you do know the difference between evolution and evolutionism?

I guess that you don't even know the difference between science and faith.

RIP: What a joke. The basis of your argument is that it "would be too fantastic and incredible"! Apparently you are too ignorant to realize that's an argument from ignorance.

ANON:The joke's on YOU; you're so blind to your own obnoxious, arrogant, self-righteous bias that you can't even see it. Do you know what "juxtaposition" means? I juxtaposed the following two arguments to show that they're BOTH specious:
1. The universe exhibits order and complexity.
2. It would be too fantastic and incredible to believe that this order and complexity could have arisen spontaneously on its own accord.
3. Therefore, this order and complexity is the result of a prior intelligence.
B.
1. The universe exhibits order and complexity.
2. It would be too fantastic and incredible to believe that this order and complexity could have arisen by a prior intelligence.
3. Therefore, this order and complexity is the result of randomness.
You totally ignore argument "B" because it serves your prior commitment and because it furthers your preconceived notions. You focus on and attack argument "A" because it doesn't serve your prior commitment and because it doesn't further your preconceived notions.

Argument B is not what science argues, so stop with the strawman BS. Science says - we don't know, so let's find out instead of using myths to explain what we don't know.

ANON:Here's something for you to mull over, Rip:
"It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate."

A lot of big words that translate to god did it. That didn't take much mulling. Do you have an acutal evidence for the presence of that "non-material, trancendent" whatever?

ANON:I use logic and reason, and I back it up. All you do is shoot from the hip, spout ignorance, and name-call.

LOL. Creos like you always get upset when their house of cards is exposed.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2010 11:53:18 AM PDT
Deckard says:
ANON said to DM:
"You can't beat me so you smear me, eh? Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your forte. If name-calling is all you've got, then you've got nothing. If you'd like to debate me, start a new discussion in a relevant subject area. I'll be happy to meet you there."

Oh, I don't think that David is going to like that very much.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2010 1:25:46 PM PDT
Anonymous says:
Machiavelli's Girlfriend,

Thank you for the citations. I will make sure to read them with an open mind.

Regarding Dr. Meyer's book, I do not cite "`The Signature in the Cell' as though it is some kind of last word about proof of a `designer.'" I never claimed it was the final word regarding anything. It raises issues and makes arguments that are relevant to my position.

The fact is that Dr. Meyer's book was listed by philosopher and atheist Thomas Nagel as a Times Literary Supplement book of the year for 2009:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article6931364.ece

THOMAS NAGEL:

"Stephen C. Meyer's Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperCollins) is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter - something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. The controversy over Intelligent Design has so far focused mainly on whether the evolution of life since its beginnings can be explained entirely by natural selection and other non-purposive causes. Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause. He examines the history and present state of research on non-purposive chemical explanations of the origin of life, and argues that the available evidence offers no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause. Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem."

...............

Machiavelli's Girlfriend writes the following:

"Meyer is part of the Discovery Institute, founded and dedicated to putting religion in public schools by falsely asserting that ID is science. The Wedge Document shows its political motivations."

You commit the genetic fallacy.

...............

I state that "I use logic and reason, and I back it up."

Machiavelli's Girlfriend responds as follows:

"You do none of the above."

Really? Is this a discussion board or a grade school playground? I cite Sir Antony Flew. I cite Dr. Stephen Meyer. And did you even look at the following peer-reviewed paper, "Information and Entropy - Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems," by University of Leeds professor Andy McIntosh in the "International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics":

"It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate."

http://journals.witpress.com/pages/paperinfo.asp?PaperID=420&jID=19&vn=4&in=4

I cite these things, and then you accuse me of not backing up my position. Do you read the posts and think before you respond? You simply turn a blind eye to the cited material. You pretend it's not there and then continue with business as usual. Well, the fact is that the cited material IS there, and if you don't respond to it in an intelligent, meaningful way, perhaps it's because you're unable to.

...............

Rip,

I read through your two most recent "responses." You misrepresent my position, and your "responses" are off point. I am not the voice of science, but neither are you. There are many different nuances and permutations to the issues being discussed here - and there are scientists on all sides.

You arrogantly, offhandedly dismiss a peer reviewed scientific paper because you don't like it: that suggests to me that you don't post in good faith.

You use terms like "claptrap," "house of cards," "BS," and "myths" because you think their pejorative connotations discredit ideas that you don't like. But all they do is discredit you.

The "big words" to which you refer are only "big" relevant to the intellectual capacity of the person reading them.

I'm simply not going to waste my time interacting with you. I'm putting you on "ignore."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2010 4:18:31 PM PDT
Mystére says:
Anonymous says: "Regarding Dr. Meyer's book, I do not cite `The Signature in the Cell' as though it is some kind of last word about proof of a `designer.'" I never claimed it was the final word regarding anything. It raises issues and makes arguments that are relevant to my position."

That is my assumption based on the number of times you provided a product link for the book.

Anonymous says: "The fact is that Dr. Meyer's book was listed by philosopher and atheist Thomas Nagel as a Times Literary Supplement book of the year for 2009"

So what? That is nothing more than the argument from authority. The problem with the Meyer book is the same with Behe's book ("Darwin's Black Box") is that it requires someone with an extensive background in biology in order to look at it with a critical eye. Otherwise, their arguments will be swallowed hook, line, and sinker by those who are looking to reinforce their pre-existing beliefs.

Anonymous says: "You commit the genetic fallacy."

This is bafflegab.

Anonymous says: Really? Is this a discussion board or a grade school playground? I cite Sir Antony Flew. I cite Dr. Stephen Meyer. And did you even look at the following peer-reviewed paper, "Information and Entropy - Top-Down or Bottom-Up Development in Living Systems," by University of Leeds professor Andy McIntosh in the "International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics":

"It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate."

http://journals.witpress.com/pages/paperinfo.asp?PaperID=420&jID=19&vn=4&in=4

I cite these things, and then you accuse me of not backing up my position. Do you read the posts and think before you respond? You simply turn a blind eye to the cited material. You pretend it's not there and then continue with business as usual. Well, the fact is that the cited material IS there, and if you don't respond to it in an intelligent, meaningful way, perhaps it's because you're unable to.

Anon, if you would like to swap insults, I can oblige you. You show yourself to be a typical creationist: you are short on facts, but you quote mine very nicely. Did your source material include "Answers in Genesis?" About your idiotic "peer-reviewed" paper, did you notice that it is published "The International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics"? Their default position is pro-"intelligent design." So, according to you, "peer-review" includes creationist knuckleheads looking over your paper and saying that "God did it is good enough for me." That's always good to know. Furthermore, if you had bothered posting more than just the author's non-supported conclusion, anyone could have seen that his (her) basic premise was flawed and unsupported. In short, it reads like nothing more than something directly from the Discovery Institute. Interestingly enough, here are some other articles published by your source (keeping in mind that the Telegraph is the UK equivalent of the National Enquirer):

Download the paper by Professor Adrian Bejan of Duke University as featured on the Telegraph and Daily Mail websites.

The Evolution Of Speed In Athletics: Why The Fastest Runners Are Black And Swimmers White

ADRIAN BEJAN, EDWARD C. JONES & JORDAN D. CHARLES

Telegraph.co.uk Article:
Centre of gravity theory for dominance of black sprinters and white swimmers

Mail Online Article:
What's the secret to running and swimming faster? The position of your belly button, say scientists
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  72
Initial post:  Jul 13, 2010
Latest post:  Nov 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions