Evidence for God from Science

DannyM wrote:

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.

Danny, I'm not saying rugby or soccer is somehow inferior to football or anything like that, far from it. I've watched some rugby matches on TV, especially teams from Australia and they are brutal. And running is even more brutal, I know, I was on the track team as well as the soccer team in HS. What I am saying is that they are different kinds of sports and therefore cannot be compared with silly stopwatch statistics. Soccer is probably the most endurance game of them all, where athletes need to be marathon runners practically to be able to play the game. Football players are simply not designed to play soccer and could not possibly do it. Rugby also relies on endurance because there's a lot of running, and the body blows are intense. In football on the other hand, most players need NOT be marathon runners, even the ones who are meant to run (running backs, wide receivers, corners, safeties). Physical strength is much more important in football than the ability to run for an extended period of time because the goal of the game is different, it demands short bursts to gain yardage, rather than endurance. But make no mistake, the body blows are the hardest I've seen and the link I provided proves it scientifically beyond any doubt. There's a reason why football produces the most injuries among all major sports combined, padding and all.

Byblos wrote:...silly stopwatch statistics.

Amazing. Yet it's the stopwatch that divides the good from the great in athletics and the stopwatch that governs the winner from the loser. It is statistics that are factual, yet silly when shown how "silly" a 12 minute game is that takes 3+ hours to play out. I would more support the game of Am. Football if the time between plays was cut to something more interesting that would more show their diversity and ability to think on the fly under pressure. Something at no more than 10 seconds. Think how much more actual game would be seen. Oh, but then we get into trouble with stamina and endurance...and that pesky stopwatch. Nevermind. Let's not make a good game better. Let's just leave it as it is for these "modern-day gladiators". Also, less pads and leather helmets would separate the real "gladiator" from the wimps.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Byblos wrote:...silly stopwatch statistics.

Amazing. Yet it's the stopwatch that divides the good from the great in athletics and the stopwatch that governs the winner from the loser. It is statistics that are factual, yet silly when shown how "silly" a 12 minute game is that takes 3+ hours to play out. I would more support the game of Am. Football if the time between plays was cut to something more interesting that would more show their diversity and ability to think on the fly under pressure. Something at no more than 10 seconds. Think how much more actual game would be seen. Oh, but then we get into trouble with stamina and endurance...and that pesky stopwatch. Nevermind. Let's not make a good game better. Let's just leave it as it is for these "modern-day gladiators". Also, less pads and leather helmets would separate the real "gladiator" from the wimps.
.
.

And that's simply because you do not understand the game.

Byblos wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Byblos wrote:...silly stopwatch statistics.

Amazing. Yet it's the stopwatch that divides the good from the great in athletics and the stopwatch that governs the winner from the loser. It is statistics that are factual, yet silly when shown how "silly" a 12 minute game is that takes 3+ hours to play out. I would more support the game of Am. Football if the time between plays was cut to something more interesting that would more show their diversity and ability to think on the fly under pressure. Something at no more than 10 seconds. Think how much more actual game would be seen. Oh, but then we get into trouble with stamina and endurance...and that pesky stopwatch. Nevermind. Let's not make a good game better. Let's just leave it as it is for these "modern-day gladiators". Also, less pads and leather helmets would separate the real "gladiator" from the wimps.
.
.

And that's simply because you do not understand the game.

As it is your only repeated defense and even if it were so, it does not negate the facts.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:As it is your only repeated defense and even if it were so, it does not negate the facts.

And in this instance the so-called facts don't mean jack. Try using a stopwatch in baseball and tell us what you find. I bet actual playing time (when the ball is in play) would be a lot less than even football. Perhaps we should just cancel America's (2nd) favorite pastime because it's not fast enough for ya .

Trying to work out which is the best sport is a bit like trying to work out which is the best flavour of soft drink.

touchingcloth wrote:Trying to work out which is the best sport is a bit like trying to work out which is the best flavour of soft drink.

Which is why I repeatedly said I wasn't doing that.

Byblos wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:As it is your only repeated defense and even if it were so, it does not negate the facts.

And in this instance the so-called facts don't mean jack. Try using a stopwatch in baseball and tell us what you find. I bet actual playing time (when the ball is in play) would be a lot less than even football. Perhaps we should just cancel America's (2nd) favorite pastime because it's not fast enough for ya .

The stop and start of the ball in baseball IS the game. It's not timed so it has nothing to do with Am. Football. The inability to distinguish the difference between a timed game and a turn-based game reveals much about your understanding of the similarities (or lack thereof) between baseball and football. Football is not based on turns where one team is afforded the same amount of offensive time as defensive. I giggle at your belief that baseball is America's 2nd favorite pastime. You're belief is slightly skewed to that of the rest America and/or the World Wide Web. A simple google search on "America's Favorite Pastime" will suffice to set the record straight.

Not fast enough for me? When did I say it's not fast enough for me. What I said was that there should be less time inbetween plays to truly show the "genius" of trucks colliding. The game is very fast...12 minutes to be exact.

Byblos wrote:...the so-called facts don't mean jack.

Are you calling me a liar? I'm going to take that as a personal attack that I post lies.
Facts are simply that. Facts. They are truth. Statistical truth of which you cannot negate on the subject. Facts are not bias.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Byblos wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:As it is your only repeated defense and even if it were so, it does not negate the facts.

And in this instance the so-called facts don't mean jack. Try using a stopwatch in baseball and tell us what you find. I bet actual playing time (when the ball is in play) would be a lot less than even football. Perhaps we should just cancel America's (2nd) favorite pastime because it's not fast enough for ya .

The stop and start of the ball in baseball IS the game. It's not timed so it has nothing to do with Am. Football. The inability to distinguish the difference between a timed game and a turn-based game reveals much about your understanding of the similarities (or lack thereof) between baseball and football. Football is not based on turns where one team is afforded the same amount of offensive time as defensive. I giggle at your belief that baseball is America's 2nd favorite pastime. You're belief is slightly skewed to that of the rest America and/or the World Wide Web. A simple google search on "America's Favorite Pastime" will suffice to set the record straight.

Not fast enough for me? When did I say it's not fast enough for me. What I said was that there should be less time inbetween plays to truly show the "genius" of trucks colliding. The game is very fast...12 minutes to be exact.

Byblos wrote:...the so-called facts don't mean jack.

Are you calling me a liar? I'm going to take that as a personal attack that I post lies.
Facts are simply that. Facts. They are truth. Statistical truth of which you cannot negate on the subject. Facts are not bias.
.
.

A personal attack? Are you ok man? Whatever you say, it's really not that important.

Byblos wrote:Danny, I'm not saying rugby or soccer is somehow inferior to football or anything like that, far from it. I've watched some rugby matches on TV, especially teams from Australia and they are brutal. And running is even more brutal, I know, I was on the track team as well as the soccer team in HS. What I am saying is that they are different kinds of sports and therefore cannot be compared with silly stopwatch statistics. Soccer is probably the most endurance game of them all, where athletes need to be marathon runners practically to be able to play the game. Football players are simply not designed to play soccer and could not possibly do it. Rugby also relies on endurance because there's a lot of running, and the body blows are intense. In football on the other hand, most players need NOT be marathon runners, even the ones who are meant to run (running backs, wide receivers, corners, safeties). Physical strength is much more important in football than the ability to run for an extended period of time because the goal of the game is different, it demands short bursts to gain yardage, rather than endurance. But make no mistake, the body blows are the hardest I've seen and the link I provided proves it scientifically beyond any doubt. There's a reason why football produces the most injuries among all major sports combined, padding and all.

Byblos, I know you are not in any way trying to demean soccer (I give up- I'll just call it soccer to you guys ). I'm happy to concede the point about rugby and American football though be cause I have little interest in both and you obviously take a keen interest in American football. I must admit, I find amusing the thought of American football or rugby players trying to play soccer. Big, lumbering bears with a football at their feet...

DannyM wrote:I must admit, I find amusing the thought of American football or rugby players trying to play soccer. Big, lumbering bears with a football at their feet...

Now that's funny.

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:I must admit, I find amusing the thought of American football or rugby players trying to play soccer. Big, lumbering bears with a football at their feet...

Now that's funny.

It was when you said "Football players are simply not designed to play soccer and could not possibly do it." I just had this vision come into my head of rugby players vs American football players in a game of soccer. But then I guess it is no more odd than visualising soccer players taking all those hits in rugby or American football... Some of 'em would snap in half I am sure of it

Byblos wrote:A personal attack? Are you ok man? Whatever you say, it's really not that important.

To you, but I suppose it is your perogative.
.
.

I thought this:

was foozball

Wow, Have i walked into a male-bonding zone or what? Ok, now shopping, there's a killer sport, especially during a huge sale!! Especially if you are wearing heals! Especially if you've just had your nails done! Especially if you have to leap over the men who are dying of boredom! Just kidding boys, just thought you needed a quick dose of estrogen.