Does God Really Exist???

Are you really THIS sure sF-nator?? Is not rather ONLY a spelling error?In my case there was actual TAPED TESTIMONY that I, BSM, was "delusional" & I have the legal record on casstte tape for you to hear if you would like a snail mail copy I'll send THIS. As I said in an eariler post I have indicated that I am reading THE OPERON edited by Miller and Rexnifoff. I am trying to read George Boole's "An Investigation of the laws of thought on which are founded the mathematical theories of logic and probalities" at the same time or in the same "moment." I am nearly at the conclusive "conclusion" that academics in the 70s used a tape looping and not a wire transmission notion of "information" erronously when naming the "operon" and the materiality that had found a "repressor" and an "attenuator" seperable at least liguistically. Thus there is really not an issue in spelling your name s c h r a f i n a "tor" or mine or anyones' else here for mike's etc. Certainly one could assert that I would not be justified in using the word "moment" univocally thus but I think there would be little legal resitance to in this medical evidence of my "delusion". The doctor said that there "may be delusion there" refering to me EXPLAINING HOW I THOUGHT PLANTS INTERACT WITH ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES. So it would be that either the plants growing in the "orchard yard" (docs words) or me is delusional but in the time (which may indeed be space) I assert that this was not DELUSIONAL and that people such as me who is being giving rent free housing becuase of this issue are not deluded at all at any time. There are clearlly assertions that such is the case.So instead in an attempt to retain GOD that Boole really discussed in his book I will assuming the above is accept(able)(ed)that this real God was dismissed by using notions of time and volume of ribsome where a less than 2-D figure was and the names created such as "protector" are rigoursly "superflous" in Boole's sense. I would not be immune to the assertion of "delusion" but instead would formally fall under "irrational" deelimination from page 97 "we have 1-y=1-(x)/(z+w) = (z+w-x)/(z+w)=(1/2)xzw + 0 xz(1-w) + 0x(1-z)w-(1/0)x(1-z)(1-w)+(1-x)zw +(1-x)z(1-w)+(1-x)(1-z)w + (0/0)(1-x)(1-w) = (1-x)zw +(1-x)z(1-w) + (1-x)(1-z)w + v(1-x)(1-z)(1-w)=(1-x)z +(1-x)(1-z)(1-w), with xzw=0, x(1-x)(1-w)=0."I would then be probably (on my own estimate) in a position to answer ERNST MAYR who stated that there are NO "W""h""y" questions in biology that can be answered without Evolution (with the capital 'e')by answering PNAS'Vol.76. No12, pp6186-6190 Dec 1979 by Cornellpeople Keller and Calvo-- "However the model does not provide answers to several questions. For example, why does derepression not occur during limitation for amino acids other than the control ones?" in terms of the symbols the sinage would provide or poove what other data need be collected povided that GOD existed. As the details are worked in and the claims of delusion out it may be that the moment the time gave gives more time and whence time against creationist thought but this I will doubt currently.The creationist point is that THERE IS EVIDENCE that HM MORRIS passed to the next generation that MAYReS of the WOrld do not provide nor by deprecation permit students to ascend to but because they "word" evolution thus I can not accept even MAYR's demurring of Monod which I was not averse to in the early 80s. I may be now. It is almost fact with me now that Cohn's internalized notion of phsyiological time is being substituted by anti-creationist evolutionists IN CANTOR's Continuum HYP-O-THESIS. My creationist claim I admit is doubtful but it is not delusional, irrational, nor implicate non-god.It is apparent ALSO to me WHY evoltionguyProvine went into MAXIM issue raising with creationistJOHNSON at Stanford. My father asserted uncategorically to me that only DUPLICITY exists. It would be sweet justice indeed if x^3=x is approved by the transitive assymetry of any old operon. I am still working onto X^2=x however.My own case has to do with the ability to use technology to communicate what the law asserts I am disabled but not necessarily delusional medically on about aboard above around at etc etc etc.I'll comment on B. Russel and if this post is in time or about space later.

I am not really "luky". I also dont think it was "chance" that it happened this way to me. The secret (etrad)e word is "preposition". I do think that GOD exists and I do not think that deductive biogeography should not still not exist to be able to employ whatever percent you wanted to "cite".33% say, I, Brad McFall, am not delusional....Hmmm I guess I could expect that but how would/could/should I know??PREpOsition is not necessarily a "preposition".So let's not pull the cat's tail just yet.Boole wrote in a chapter on the "constitution of the intellect" (p401 op cit)in the !1850s! "It is maintained by some of the highest modern authorities in grammer that conjunctions connect propositions only. Now, without inquiring directly whether this opinion is sound or not, it is obvious that it cannot consistently be held by any who admit the scientific principles of this treatise; for to such it would seem to invovle either a denial, either, 1st, of the possibility of PERFORMING, or 2ndly, of the possibility of EXPRESSING, a mental operation, the laws of which, viewed in both these relations, have been investigated and applied in the present work." Note also that Boole penned(p272 op.cit.) "Let it be granted that there exists such a feeling as expectation, a feeling of which the object is the occurence of events, and which admits of differing degrees of intensity. Let it also be granted that this feeling of expectation accompanies our knowledge of the circumstances under which events are produced, and that it varies with the degree and kind of that knowledge. Then, without assuming, or tacitly implying, that the intensity of the feeling of expectation viewed as mental emotion..."NOW is it not grantable that PNAS77,no1pp508-tweleve5hundred( "Under maximally repressed conditions, the HIS operon is still expressed at a basal level. The details of hos this basal level is maintained are not yet clear. The basal level does not merely reflect the extent to which the attenuator is unable to prevent readthrough. The HISOxxx and HISoXxX mutations owe their HIS- phenotype to attenuator function. Therefore, the attenuator stem appears capable of blocking virtually all transcription. We believe that the basal level will be explained by statistical flucutations) in ribosome position (NOT PREPOSITION!!!!) under repressing conditions. If, occasionally, the first ribosome is late in initiating leader peptide synthesis or is slowed by fluctuations in concentration of any of the charged tRNAs, the attenuator stem would not form. The basal level, we expect, will reflect the frequency with which such events occur under repressing conditions."granted this number else we NEED to keep differentiated absolutely display vs presented conjunctions (because of the difference of the phone and the computer) because even if 33 out of 100 say I displayed delusional behavor 66 could in equity no matter the asset say I presented NOT the same even If i was 100% sure I was correct. Muse about Bertrand Russel's use of math vs unity in the pure and applied MATHEMATICS of vonWeiskaer's "unity of nature" if you are still awaiting me to even explain that last sentence. I get tired of the same old saw that was Clinton's fingered poet who was not but appeared. Deceptive evolution by a creature is not the same as a deceived human suffiently. I was hospitalized NOT becuase I was delusional or that a percent felt this way but becuase rather than watching TV I was creating a prepositonal database of herpetological collection localites AND how to find them. I did not view the computer as it then was as changing in any way if this was sound or not. Look at Russel's use of "sense" and note that trichotmy may exist (unified) in the tacit intenisty of teaching establishements in UnionsTates when not all over against creationism. Havard failed to find this reductionism in Topobiology but an alternative is still visible navigating the Cornell Corpse Campus or Cornell Information Tech graphs of how to design webservices...If you simply find that evolutionary biology is a grammetological and not a lexicological problem set then you can get any percent legally against my own existence but this would not extend to my brothers(wath word "set"). I had a different even epistemological notion of the ribosome BEFORE i was being "forced" at CU to understand this kind of operations. I knew that it was a naiiave idea but I was supprised the THE ENTIRE issue about my education reduced indeed to a simple thought I had while watching Penrose on PBS and reading thru a Scientific American. And on the facts I think this is about phase modulation not movement. The thought is that the digestive "system" is an multiplication in the Boole sense but NOT addition. This I may not know.I believe there is a verse about flowers. There may be no such "condition".

Dan there is no more river nor Hume contracts out but I'm all for GOD and the global vs local flood as long as Boole's infant footnote ("The mode in which such data as the above might be furnished by experience is easily conceivable. Opposite the window of the room in which I write is a field, liable to be overflowed from two causes, distinct, but capable of being combined, viz, floods from the upper sources of the River Lee, and tides from the ocean. Suppose that observations made on N seperate occaions have yielded the following results..let it be required to determine the total probablity of its inundation.") is current. She bangs"" is totally NOT!No matter even if UF is confused or fused with UCB.

It doesnt matter either way. I was concerned that schrafinator might indeed be able to cure deulsion that are really only illusions. It is tough when even feelings are invlolved. We all know each other well enough here not to let the better get the better half of each of us.Dont worry about me. I am not benigne however@

To be honest,it is mORE logical to me than that Betrand Russel writing on logic itself rejected a claimed proof of Cantor. I dont know if he rejected it AFTER he saw Cantor's maginal penmanship or before but the Bible makes more sense to me than what I understand of BR's rejection of a limit proof.