4 reasons why I don’t believe in marathons

These runners at the 2004 USMC Marathon in Washington, D.C., would love to have me believe they just ran more than 26 miles. Fat chance. (Photo by Monica Darby, public domain)

If you believe in marathons, prepare to have your faith shaken. Marathons are a lie. They don’t exist. You may be saying, “That’s not true! Marathons are real. They happen all the time.”

How deceived you are. Did you ever stop to consider that that’s just what the running establishment and the media want you to think? Look at the facts!

1. No one has ever seen a marathon. People can run short distances, sure. You may have seen this at an athletic event down at the local track: Kids running one mile, maybe two. But when was the last time you saw someone run more than that? Never? That’s what I thought.

It’s one thing to run one mile, or even two; running 26.2 miles is quite another. Seems like a pretty big “leap of faith” for you to believe in something you’ve never seen just because you have observed a fundamentally identical process at work on a smaller scale, doesn’t it?

2. People believe in marathons because they want to. So, now you’re wondering, “What about all the people who have attended marathons? Are they lying?” Not necessarily. Perhaps they just have different starting points, different lenses through which they are viewing the evidence.

Maybe you have even been to a marathon yourself. But did you really see what you thought you saw? Think about what you actually observed: People starting a race and people finishing a race. Or maybe, you saw a group of people run by somewhere along the supposedly “26.2-mile” course.

You did not see anyone run 26.2 miles. You only believe that you did because you presupposed that that’s what you were going to see.

3. Marathons make no sense. A marathon is 26.2 miles long. Think about how far that is. It would be like running straight up five Mount Everests or across more than half of Rhode Island. Sound possible? Didn’t think so.

I can tell you right now, that the odds of me being able to run a marathon, untrained and unguided, would be trillions to one. And I may not be a betting man, but even I know that those are not good odds.

4. People who run marathons hate God. I can see how desperate you are now, grasping at straws to find something, anything, to shore up your belief in marathons. Your last hope, of course, lies with the marathoners themselves. Thousands of people run marathons every year, you say, so they must be real.

But, here, we must tread more carefully than ever before, lest we risk contradicting God’s word. First of all, we know the origin of the marathon comes from the legend of the Greek messenger Pheidippides, who ran from the battlefield of Marathon all the way to Athens to announce that the Persians had been defeated. He got his message out, just before he collapsed and died from exhaustion.

So, when you support marathons, you are not only celebrating someone’s death, but also a legend that arose out of a pagan society. Doesn’t sound to me like something God would bless, but let’s look at what the Bible says.

Most of the time the Bible mentions “running,” it is the context of sin and evil! Here are a few examples: “For their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed blood” (Proverbs 1:16), “Woe to those who rise early in the morning, that they may run after strong drink” (Isaiah 5:11) and “They leap upon the city, they run upon the walls” (Joel 2:9). Sure, Isaiah 52:7 says, “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news,” but notice that it does not say the feet are running.

Bottom line, scripture clearly defines running as a slippery slope to alcoholism, theft and murder. So, when you believe someone who says they have run a marathon, you are believing someone who is or soon will be a murderer.

In conclusion, marathons have never been observed, and the idea that they could even be possible makes no sense to me. Furthermore, the concept runs counter to the clear teachings of the Bible. People believe in marathons because they don’t want to be accountable to the word of God.

Editor’s note: I hope you liked this little piece of satire. Other than the odds against me completing a marathon being trillions to one, it is mostly untrue. The Bible actually speaks very positively of running, such as in Hebrews 12:1-3 and 1 Corinthians 9:24-27, and I greatly admire distance runners.

Creationists, like Ken Ham (who teaches children to say, “Were you there?” when presented with the evidence for evolution and an old earth) and Ray Comfort (whose latest project, “Evolution vs. God,” is built on the premise that evolution has no evidence and is based on faith), say evolution on a large scale is invalid science because it has never been observed. They imply that something must be observable in order for it to be true, regardless of the evidence for its existence we may have.

The problems with this approach are obvious. If we had to follow this standard in other aspects of our lives, we would be unable to do science with any forces or objects that we can’t directly observe (including gravity, electromagnetic fields and subatomic particles), we would almost never be able to convict someone of a crime and we probably wouldn’t make very good friends or spouses (since we couldn’t trust anything someone talked about unless we had experienced the same thing).

We cannot see electromagnetic fields, but we know they exist because we can see the impact they have on other objects. In the same way, we cannot see macroevolution, because the process takes longer than a human lifetime, but we can see the “impact” of its existence in the path evolutionary change took through the fossil record.

We know large-scale changes are possible because we see no evidence of mammals and birds co-existing with Devonian placoderms in rock that is apparently 400 million years old. Obviously, it was many “changes in kind” that coaxed the modern life forms we see today out of the simpler ones of that era, because if it didn’t, then where did we all come from? If modern animals did not evolve from Devonian life, but were created with them during the same week, they would have been buried right alongside each other in ancient rock.

“You weren’t there; you don’t know what happened.” Ironically, courts are developing stricter and stricter guidelines on the admission of eyewitness testimony, as repeated studies demonstrate its unreliability. I know that if I were a detective, I would always prefer hard evidence. Yes, a fingerprint cannot tell you how it got there — you have to use your brain. But it also cannot lie or be mistaken. And the same is true of fossils.

As you head to Facebook to join the “Christians Against Marathons” Page, why not Like us as well? Support us in our fight against long-distance races.

Tyler Francke

  • Tim Lundy

    haha. awesome

  • Raymond DeBrane

    I believe in evolution, but I don’t believe it happened without some great intelligence driving it. One scientist recently said that the universe is a quantum level computer, a very smart one. So this may be the driver of evolution in my opinion. Evolutionists haven’t to my knowledge explained basic things like which came first, the chicken or the egg, the plant or the seed, the male or the female. Until they are able to answer those questions, the theory of evolution is incomplete.

    Evolutionists claim that complex biological systems came into being by natural selection and eons of time. Yet the public calls inventors like Edison and Nicola Tesla geniuses for inventing things that are far less complex than biological systems, like the brain, eyes, and ears. Did you know vision and hearing convert analog signals from the outside world into a form of digital that the brain uses? Scientists invented hearing aids and vision aids that convert analog to digital so they can feed the digital signals into blind and death people’s brains to enable them to see and hear. Those systems are very complex, but not as complex as biological systems. Any electronic or mechanical device that man has invented has been based on some type of mathematics. Math is key to designing complex systems, especially electronic systems. So is creative thinking. Evolutionists sweep this under the rug. Oh, and I’ll bet evolutionists are largely atheists. I’d like to take a poll. Maybe they are pissed off at God from an early age when they thought that if there was a God, whatever bad happened to them or people around them would have not happened. God would have prevented it so there is no God. Everybody comes at an issue with some kind of bias. Creationists and evolutionists are on opposite sides of the bias fence. I’m somewhere in the middle saying that there has to be an alternative to either extreme.

    Consider that time is a thing that goes on in our universe. Time even gets distorted in black holes in our universe. So what is time outside our universe? Does it exist in some form, or is there no past, present, or future outside of our universe? Consider that when you ask people, who made God? The question may be an invalid one. The Bible writer may be guessing correctly when he says that God had no beginning and will have no end. and that God always was and always will be.

    Maybe this quantum level computer is a piece of God. Yet again, maybe it’s a piece of the Gods. Why should there only be on God? After all, there are polytheistic cultures.

    I hope this is food for thought.

    • DUME85

      They have answered which came first the chicken or the egg.http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/finally-answered-which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg
      The egg had to come first because the creature that made the egg was not quite a chicken the egg has a new mutation making it a chicken.
      You can disagree with the article on just what defines a chicken but at the end of the day a line needs to be drawn between a chicken and a non-chicken and the result will always be the same because only the egg has a new change. However, If you just mean an egg in general and not a chicken egg than it’s likely that the egg came about far before the chicken.

      Also you are wrong evolution only explains the process itself not what has happened as a result of that process. What you are looking for is more along the lines or an origin theory which evolution can help explain.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44 This video explains the process of evolution pretty well. However like he says he is using a far less complex system with only a few imputs. there are also these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_organism
      The code that determines how the program is able to evole can be compared to that of the natural processes of the universe but once again it is far less complex.