Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote: AC/DC rocks.. Back in Black is one of my favorite albums.

I'm gonna get straight on the youtube! It's funny how you forget a certain band/group ever existed until someone reminds you... This thread has just made my smile get broader and broader

Gman wrote:Danny and John.. You guys are welcome to come here to California anytime. I'm right next to San Francisco, (tonight near China town). You will love it. I've got everything here. The ocean, city, mountains, redwood trees, and large beautiful aquariums.

And our beer is better too... I'll raise you a 12 pack..

Oh my days that sounds like a holiday to me- and you *live* there?? I'm looking at the sea right now but I doubt we get the weather you get Gman
I've just google-mapped you Gman and it looks lovely. Might have to make it my next holiday. I was gonna plump for NY again but, um, I might have to have a little rethink What, Bud? The king o beers?

Gman wrote:

DannyM wrote: AC/DC used to be brilliant, with their little hopping guitar man?? Used to love that guy! Byblos, if you missed it go back and check out my link to The Who from their day, brilliant video of Won't Get Fooled Again!

AC/DC rocks.. Back in Black is one of my favorite albums.

Definitely. And they are still brilliant. Angus Young, fantastic guitarist. By the time he was done playing Thunderstruck at the Meadowlands his hand was literally bleeding.

DannyM wrote:Byblos that would be great but I'm not back in London now until May at the earliest. I'm going to see if there's anything I can do though to get back! That would have been perfect. Are you just connecting another flight?

Yes, connecting flight but I might have a few hours to kill. Still not sure if I'm going through London yet. It would have been great to hook up. Maybe next time.

Gman wrote:Danny and John.. You guys are welcome to come here to California anytime. I'm right next to San Francisco, (tonight near China town). You will love it. I've got everything here. The ocean, city, mountains, redwood trees, and large beautiful aquariums.

And our beer is better too... I'll raise you a 12 pack..

Would absolutely love that. I've never made it to the west coast yet. I'll keep that in mind if I ever do.

DannyM wrote:I've just google-mapped you Gman and it looks lovely. Might have to make it my next holiday. I was gonna plump for NY again but, um, I might have to have a little rethink What, Bud? The king o beers?

If you do decide to come to NY then you'd be in my neck of the woods. Let me know and we'll plan something.

Byblos wrote:American football is an amazing game, the modern gladiators. Nothing like it.

Haha!! Gladiators? Hardly. Gladiators wore helmets and armor to protect themselves from sharp and/or blunt objects meant to kill. Today's Am. Football players are an equivalent to padded heavy weight ice dancers.

It's a proven fact that of the 3+ hours it takes to go through one game of football, there is at most 12 minutes of actual ball-in-play time. The rest is hugging each other in a circle, patting each others hind quarters, trash-talking, show-boating, ...

The whole season is 16 games! Are you serious? And this, I hear, is because it's such a gruelling game! Really? From our largest and most intimidating "atheletes"? They can only give us 12 minutes, 16 times a year? 192 minutes of game time a year divided by the number of players on a team? Some teams have more than 50 on the roster.

Each team is made of "atheletes" of which 80% couldn't run the length of their own field without the need of pure oxygen after this 'great' feat of endurance.

It's a game of large "tough" men pushing each other around looking like the Michelin Man. Basically these are over-paid blockheads of which most of their academic achievment is due in large part by creative number juggling or outright dishonesty on the part of the colleges that needed them for their team.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 61406.html

http://thepensblog.blogspot.com/2007/09 ... lysis.html

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/12/how-much-action/

I don't necessarily love Soccer/Football, however I can appreciate the fact that these are truely atheletes that play and run continually for 90 minutes and where the game's name actually fits in with how it is played.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Byblos wrote:American football is an amazing game, the modern gladiators. Nothing like it.

Haha!! Gladiators? Hardly. Gladiators wore helmets and armor to protect themselves from sharp and/or blunt objects meant to kill. Today's Am. Football players are an equivalent to padded heavy weight ice dancers.

It's a proven fact that of the 3+ hours it takes to go through one game of football, there is at most 12 minutes of actual ball-in-play time. The rest is hugging each other in a circle, patting each others hind quarters, trash-talking, show-boating, ...

The whole season is 16 games! Are you serious? And this, I hear, is because it's such a gruelling game! Really? From our largest and most intimidating "atheletes"? They can only give us 12 minutes, 16 times a year? 192 minutes of game time a year divided by the number of players on a team? Some teams have more than 50 on the roster.

Each team is made of "atheletes" of which 80% couldn't run the length of their own field without the need of pure oxygen after this 'great' feat of endurance.

It's a game of large "tough" men pushing each other around looking like the Michelin Man. Basically these are over-paid blockheads of which most of their academic achievment is due in large part by creative number juggling or outright dishonesty on the part of the colleges that needed them for their team.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 61406.html

http://thepensblog.blogspot.com/2007/09 ... lysis.html

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/12/how-much-action/

I don't necessarily love Soccer/Football, however I can appreciate the fact that these are truely atheletes that play and run continually for 90 minutes and where the game's name actually fits in with how it is played.
.
.

That's because you do not understand the game (we've been there before, haven't we? I'm getting a very bad case of deja vu).

Soccer and rugby are endurance games, more than anything. Football is brute strength, has nothing to do with endurance so you can't compare the 2 (or 3). But if you insist, I will agree with you that soccer and rugby players will run circles around football players. But when they eventually get tackled they will be crushed like little bugs on a light zapper.

Post edit: I went looking for some real comparisons between rugby and football tackles and by God I found one here. A football tackle, with full padding, measured 3 times as strong as a rugby tackle. Averaging tackles per game they would be just about as comparable in numbers but still, the shear force of getting hit with over 4,800 pounds of force (as compared to 1,600 in rugby) should highlight the difference in the both games.

.
.
I've probably been watching and understanding the game longer than you think. It's the same thing over and over...player gets ball...player tries to go through hole that other players are supposed to make for him, but instead player with ball hits own players and gains a yard or two if lucky. Sometimes player gets lucky. Player with ball is not able to see that the hole is not there and thus make his own intelligent decision to realize this and take a different route. Players are definitely game pieces and do EXACTLY what they are told. Padded robots.

Or how about the "rules" that one cannot celebrate a touchdown? What is this about? Sportsmanship? It's ok to stomp a player down, point your finger at them after a tackle and taunt them, but God forbid a player celebrates crossing that line for 6 pts.

Unnecessary roughness?

Of course we've been here before, yet the fact remains the same.

It's like fighting. Whomever is the heavyweight boxing champion now couldn't fight his way OUT of the ring against a true fighter. Sure he's impressive against someone throwing another set of large padded gloves at his face. Remove those large pads and allow for actual hits and all of a sudden this champion is reduced to a bloody pulp or humiliated by tapping out in seconds against a real fighter who goes out to fight in nothing but pair of shorts and a little bit of knuckle protection.
.
.

Byblos wrote: If you do decide to come to NY then you'd be in my neck of the woods. Let me know and we'll plan something.

You betcha Byblos. I guess at least that way we'll have the time to pound a few

BavarianWheels wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 61406.html

http://thepensblog.blogspot.com/2007/09 ... lysis.html

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/12/how-much-action/

Bav, those links are astonishing. You guys do love an ad break over there huh? Also, I cannot believe that time wasted does not get added on after the game... In football (soccer) any time wasted, whether on injuries or deliberately gets added on at the end of the game. Even the time taken for substitutions gets added on. Some games run for over 96 minutes. I simply cannot believe those figures for the time the ball is in actual play.

BavarianWheels wrote:.
.
I've probably been watching and understanding the game longer than you think. It's the same thing over and over...player gets ball...player tries to go through hole that other players are supposed to make for him, but instead player with ball hits own players and gains a yard or two if lucky. Sometimes player gets lucky. Player with ball is not able to see that the hole is not there and thus make his own intelligent decision to realize this and take a different route. Players are definitely game pieces and do EXACTLY what they are told. Padded robots.

Or how about the "rules" that one cannot celebrate a touchdown? What is this about? Sportsmanship? It's ok to stomp a player down, point your finger at them after a tackle and taunt them, but God forbid a player celebrates crossing that line for 6 pts.

Unnecessary roughness?

Of course we've been here before, yet the fact remains the same.

It's like fighting. Whomever is the heavyweight boxing champion now couldn't fight his way OUT of the ring against a true fighter. Sure he's impressive against someone throwing another set of large padded gloves at his face. Remove those large pads and allow for actual hits and all of a sudden this champion is reduced to a bloody pulp or humiliated by tapping out in seconds against a real fighter who goes out to fight in nothing but pair of shorts and a little bit of knuckle protection.
.
.

Sorry Bav, I don't care how long you've been watching the game, now I know for sure you don't understand it. Football has more strategy where players must think on their feet than a game of chess or an actual battle. Of course they try to execute a previously agreed upon play but seldom things go the way they're supposed to and players on both sides must react instantaneously (while guarding against than 350 lb truck barreling down towards them). Rugby is a contact sport, football is a collision sport. There simply is no contest Bav, it's the most violent game ever played.

DannyM wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 61406.html

http://thepensblog.blogspot.com/2007/09 ... lysis.html

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/12/how-much-action/

Bav, those links are astonishing. You guys do love an ad break over there huh? Also, I cannot believe that time wasted does not get added on after the game... In football (soccer) any time wasted, whether on injuries or deliberately gets added on at the end of the game. Even the time taken for substitutions gets added on. Some games run for over 96 minutes. I simply cannot believe those figures for the time the ball is in actual play.

Indeed!

Can you imagine?! A WHOLE Am. Football season is 240 minutes of play...divided by 50+ players on each team. Less than 5 minutes of play per player, per year.
.
.

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote: If you do decide to come to NY then you'd be in my neck of the woods. Let me know and we'll plan something.

You betcha Byblos. I guess at least that way we'll have the time to pound a few

Definitely.

DannyM wrote:Bav, those links are astonishing. You guys do love an ad break over there huh? Also, I cannot believe that time wasted does not get added on after the game... In football (soccer) any time wasted, whether on injuries or deliberately gets added on at the end of the game. Even the time taken for substitutions gets added on. Some games run for over 96 minutes. I simply cannot believe those figures for the time the ball is in actual play.

Those stats are meaningless Danny. As I said before, it's a totally different game than soccer or rugby which are endurance games. I mean if you want to limit football's time to when the ball is actually in play, it would be like limiting soccer's time to the aggregate split seconds the ball is actually being kicked. The rest of the time the players are simply running, how hard is that?

Football is not an endurance sport, it is full, head-on sport of 35 mph collisions. The comparison just doesn't hold.

Byblos wrote:Sorry Bav, I don't care how long you've been watching the game, now I know for sure you don't understand it. Football has more strategy where players must think on their feet than a game of chess or an actual battle. Of course they try to execute a previously agreed upon play but seldom things go the way they're supposed to and players on both sides must react instantaneously (while guarding against than 350 lb truck barreling down towards them). Rugby is a contact sport, football is a collision sport. There simply is no contest Bav, it's the most violent game ever played.

Quite impressive Byblos. I mention one aspect of the game and by this you conclude that's all I know. Then you try and portray a 350lb truck barreling down towards them as being a truck vs. a pogo stick ignoring that it is two trucks heading for each other. Bigger isn't necessarily better. A 205lb truck can easily out-manuver a 350lb truck, bounce off and continue as is the case in Am. Football.

Most violent game? I guess you've never watched a UFC fight. Of course there are no other games/sports that are condusive to injury EXECPT football.

It's funny how you see players "reacting instantaneously". While there are some players with good instincts, the norm is a head down charge.

...and now you're going to portray rugby as a game akin to two-hand-touch?

Byblos wrote:Those stats are meaningless Danny.

They are factual statistics. You sound much like an atheist trying to disprove the Bible, history, and archaeology.

Byblos wrote:it would be like limiting soccer's time to the aggregate split seconds the ball is actually being kicked. The rest of the time the players are simply running, how hard is that?

You're really going to reach for that, Byblos? The ball is in play between kicks vs. the ball being cradled by the ref or sitting on the field idle as the players run to the sidelines to consult with their coach and have a drink? Really funny stuff.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Byblos wrote:Sorry Bav, I don't care how long you've been watching the game, now I know for sure you don't understand it. Football has more strategy where players must think on their feet than a game of chess or an actual battle. Of course they try to execute a previously agreed upon play but seldom things go the way they're supposed to and players on both sides must react instantaneously (while guarding against than 350 lb truck barreling down towards them). Rugby is a contact sport, football is a collision sport. There simply is no contest Bav, it's the most violent game ever played.

Quite impressive Byblos. I mention one aspect of the game and by this you conclude that's all I know. Then you try and portray a 350lb truck barreling down towards them as being a truck vs. a pogo stick ignoring that it is two trucks heading for each other. Bigger isn't necessarily better. A 205lb truck can easily out-manuver a 350lb truck, bounce off and continue as is the case in Am. Football.

Bav, you mentioned one aspect of the game, yes, but based on that one aspect you labeled them robots so that speaks volumes as to your understanding of the game. Did you know there are literally thousands of different plays that can be called by the quarterback in the huddle and all 11 players must know exactly which one is being called and what each one's role will be? To call football players mindless robots is to be ignorant of the game, sorry.

BavarianWheels wrote:Most violent game? I guess you've never watched a UFC fight. Of course there are no other games/sports that are condusive to injury EXECPT football.

Pound of force for pound of force football is the hardest modern game to be played today. I stand by that.

BavarianWheels wrote:It's funny how you see players "reacting instantaneously". While there are some players with good instincts, the norm is a head down charge.

And there it is again. Bav, you do not understand the first thing about football. No point in continuing this, really. I'm not being dismissive but if you want to argue the intricacies of the game at least learn what it's about.

BavarianWheels wrote:Indeed!

Can you imagine?! A WHOLE Am. Football season is 240 minutes of play...divided by 50+ players on each team. Less than 5 minutes of play per player, per year.
.
.

There's gotta be a glitch in the stats, Bav because I'm not having that!!

Byblos wrote:Those stats are meaningless Danny. As I said before, it's a totally different game than soccer or rugby which are endurance games. I mean if you want to limit football's time to when the ball is actually in play, it would be like limiting soccer's time to the aggregate split seconds the ball is actually being kicked. The rest of the time the players are simply running, how hard is that?

Football is not an endurance sport, it is full, head-on sport of 35 mph collisions. The comparison just doesn't hold.

How hard is running? I don't know about you my friend but running for me is akin to torture; 70-80 minutes of it (accounting for "breaks" in play for free-kicks, throw-ins and corners) and you need to be calling me an ambulance! But forget that because I'd be flat on my back after 30 minutes! I'm with you on American football being tough, but have you watched rugby? We're talking half the team standing each at 6ft 5-7 inches, built like bears and pounding into eachother with *no* protective wear whatsoever. I'm not saying rugby *is* harder, but I'm dubious about your claim considering those factors I've just mentioned. I'd be more than happy for you to be right- this isn't a national pride issure for me at all, but I can't make my mind up.

Byblos wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Byblos wrote:Sorry Bav, I don't care how long you've been watching the game, now I know for sure you don't understand it. Football has more strategy where players must think on their feet than a game of chess or an actual battle. Of course they try to execute a previously agreed upon play but seldom things go the way they're supposed to and players on both sides must react instantaneously (while guarding against than 350 lb truck barreling down towards them). Rugby is a contact sport, football is a collision sport. There simply is no contest Bav, it's the most violent game ever played.

Quite impressive Byblos. I mention one aspect of the game and by this you conclude that's all I know. Then you try and portray a 350lb truck barreling down towards them as being a truck vs. a pogo stick ignoring that it is two trucks heading for each other. Bigger isn't necessarily better. A 205lb truck can easily out-manuver a 350lb truck, bounce off and continue as is the case in Am. Football.

Bav, you mentioned one aspect of the game, yes, but based on that one aspect you labeled them robots so that speaks volumes as to your understanding of the game. Did you know there are literally thousands of different plays that can be called by the quarterback in the huddle and all 11 players must know exactly which one is being called and what each one's role will be? To call football players mindless robots is to be ignorant of the game, sorry.

BavarianWheels wrote:Most violent game? I guess you've never watched a UFC fight. Of course there are no other games/sports that are condusive to injury EXECPT football.

Pound of force for pound of force football is the hardest modern game to be played today. I stand by that.

BavarianWheels wrote:It's funny how you see players "reacting instantaneously". While there are some players with good instincts, the norm is a head down charge.

And there it is again. Bav, you do not understand the first thing about football. No point in continuing this, really. I'm not being dismissive but if you want to argue the intricacies of the game at least learn what it's about.

It's ok. If you disagree that most plays play out as a head down rush into bodies isn't the norm, then you're in denial about the way the game is played vs. the intent of the plays planned. The plans are beautiful and when they work they make for some amazing footage and I agree it's cool to some extent, HOWEVER it's not the norm and we must judge on what is seen on average not what is seen in file footage.

Like I said to begin. Soccer isn't even a game I like. All I know and promote here are the facts of football shown in the statistics which you toss aside while saying I don't understand the game and so there's no point in continuing. The facts remain and among those facts is: 3 hrs per game/12-15 minutes of actual play. Players wear more padding then runway models. Players have breaks every few seconds to get a drink and chit-chat with the coach and friends. Rules suppress excitement on scoring to suppress hurting the feelings of the other players and to portray "sportsmanship" while allowing the pointing of fingers and trash-talking apart from scoring a touchdown. Hundreds of dollars are needed PER PLAYER (if not more...speaking of beginners) in equipment to play the game. 16 games per year, 240 actual minutes of play per season.

These are the facts and they are undisputed.
.
.