Driver to drive?

[Parse Tree]

Paul Burke wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Maths didn't really get started until the 16 to 18 hundreds. Certainly
no one knew how to handle infinites correctly until then. Look up
definitions of limits. Even the idea of a static universe by Newton
was flawed because he/they didn't know how to correctly account for
the "infinite" number of stars.

So, yeah they were ignorant peasants.


By those standards, we are ignorant peasants now, since the maths of the
future (assuming sentient beings survive) will inevitably make ours look
primitive.

In comparison to those in the future we certainly are ignorant peasants.
Provided their mathematics is more advanced, of course.

 

[Rolavine]

Subject: Re: Republican voters will soon be rounded up
From: "Bradley1234" someone@yahoo.com
Date: 1/25/05 8:48 PM Pacific Standard
"David Grant" <NO_SPAM_PLEASE_jmd_2003@msn.com> wrote
The only people who have made a case AGAINST the war in Iraq are the
Saddam
loyalists, and al Queda and other terrorist groups.

Add me to that list: You're only giving extremist Islamists what they want
by invading Muslim countries. With your armies occupying their countries
you
are much more convenient for them to attack, plus while your armies occupy
Afghanistan and Iraq the aggrivation you cause their population recruits
more people (i.e terrorists) to their cause.

I dont think so. Extremist Islamists, aka the Taliban, would you say we
gave them what they wanted in Afganistan? No, we gave them what I wanted to
give them, bunker buster bombs and daisy cutters. Im sorry for the innocent
civilian, and animal, insect and plant life that suffered and perished. The
Taliban were among other notorious and infamous barbarian, evil, sociopathic
murderers in history. I suppose a person is either aligned with them or
opposed to them; Or is just ignorant and doesnt know what they represent.

The aggravation we cause the population? is that what you said?

You mean the liberating of 100 million or more people from murderous,
totalitarian regimes that tortured innocents in unspeakable ways? The
setting free of women and children from torture camps? This was aggravating
to them?

Where did you get 100 million, combined population of Afghanistan and Iraq is

about 51 million? You are acting as if this is a done deal, that now liberty
has moved to these lands and all hostilities will stop. This is a silly
kindergarten view of both history, and current events. It isn't happening,
Afghanistan is very unstable, Karzoi is protected by US marines as he can't
find any Afghans to trust. We held elections there but Karzoi flew in choppers
when the other candidates had to use Abdul's rent a camel. The coalition there
was put together from a bunch of factions that only had one thing in common,
the Taliban wanted to kill them! These Taliban that now so deserve your beloved
daisy cutters were once our allies, and Bin Ladden was once their go between to
get our money and weapons to fight the Soviets. History has shown that nothing
stays the same for long. You yell liberation today, but your actions tomorrow
may kill millions of people tomorrow. They have no crystal ball in DC, they
only pretend they do, and any partially aware observer of history knows that
they screw up most of the time. Lets not forget what leader of Iraq we also
gave arms too? I'm positive there were plenty of people just like you that were
screaming about that glorious decision back then too.

The experts on what is happening in the middle east are the middle eastern
press, and they are saying it is not a matter of if Iraq has a civil war, it is
a matter of when? Conditions there are just as ripe as they were in the former
Yugoslavia, where the removal of a repressive force (Soviets) opened up the
gates of hell. I find that the closest parallel to what we have created in
Iraq.

When that happens and millions of dead stack on top of the 100K we have killed
so far, how will you and Bush pay for your hubris? Oh yeah, you will blame the
liberals for not more fully supporting your BS, ha!


<snip>

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:39:39 -0800, Alex Zaretsky wrote:


We are developing a "camera on a stick".
It is actually a CMOS sensor camera with a very simple Micro controller
which supports the USB 2.0 protocol and MPEG2 encoder chip.
The idea is that the camera will compress rather small video clips in
MPEG2 format to the external "disk-on-key" (for example of M-Systems)
connected to the camera all the time during video capturing.
When the disk-on-key is inserted to a computer USB it should be
automatically accessable by Windows Explorer without installation of
any driver software.

The problem we face is how to support the Windows File system without
using high-end controllers (ARM for example) with an operating system
running on it. We are really interested in keeping the price of the
device as low as possible.


FWIW, I have a Fuji "Fine-Pix A210" with USB, and whether I plug it into
Doze or Linux it just shows up as a drive. I have no idea what exact
filesystem it is, or if it even makes any difference; in Doze it just
shows up when I plug it in, with Linux, I have to mount it. So the OS has
whatever drivers it needs - all you have to do is deliver data to it,
I'd think.

Yes, since the PC, here Doze or Linux provides the USB driver.
The problems with these is writing to the USB stick from an
embedded systems where a USB host adapter is not trivial.
It is the USB part that is difficult, not the filesystem part.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

 

[Andrew]

Tony,

Since you are still interested in this topic, I figured I would let you
know an update.

I tried out a 470uH inductor in series with the motor, only to find
that it reacted much they way that the wire did. It lowered the motor
whine, made everything sound smoother, and dropped the current @ no
load by about 1A. This is all good stuff, but the bad part is that it
also dropped voltage like crazy. At no load, it only dropped about
0.5V, but at a load of roughly 1.5A, it dropped roughly 2.5V. This is
for 50% duty cycle, average DC current of 1.5A, the voltage across the
motor was only 9.5V instead of 12V (which is 50% of the supply, which
is 24V).

The long and short is that this particular inductor has way too much DC
resistance (from what I can figure) and that has to be the cause of the
problems? I am going to try a lower resistance value just to see the
difference, but the fact is that I have accepted that I need to change
motor drivers. The new motor driver will have 20kHz instead of 7.8kHz
which should significantly decrease power loss and heating effects.

Oh yeah, I think the time constant should be 0.253mS, not 253mS? It is
L/R, 80uH/0.316ohm = 80e-6/0.316 = 0.253mS?

I'll let you know what happens with the new driver. Thanks for your
interest.

-Andrew Czop

 

[Noah Roberts]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

...However, I use occams razor. A higher
consciousness don't achieve anything explanation wise, so why
introduce
one?
Its always the same, to actually claim something else as existing,
surly
we require some evidence that this something else should exist. For
god
there is *ZERO* evidence or reason.

There is a reason. We know that the universe had a beginning, it
therefore has a cause. God is one of the many alternative
explainations.

I have seen no evidence to support evolution, but I listen to those
that have studied it and believe it a likely possibility. I have seen
evidence of God that, apparently, not everyone has seen. Why is what I
have seen and studied less valid than the other?

 

[Noah Roberts]

Parse Tree wrote:

Noah Roberts wrote:
I have seen no evidence to support evolution, but I listen to those
that have studied it and believe it a likely possibility. I have
seen
evidence of God that, apparently, not everyone has seen. Why is
what I
have seen and studied less valid than the other?

Because everyone can see the evidence for evolution if they choose
to,
and the 'evidence' for god is not similarly objective.

But you are wrong there. Anyone that wants to CAN see the evidence for
God.

 

[Anthony Fremont]

"jcpearce" <jcpearce2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<snip for brevity>

Any ideas on how to smother the EMI or some other small motherboard
which may not have as much an issue?

Others have covered the major factors to look at. Basically any wire
coming out of the case is suspect. You could use feed thru caps to pass
the power cables out of the case. I'm not sure how that would work on
the video signals though, it might seriously degrade them. And that
brings us to the point of my post, what are you using for a display? In
my experience, displays and keyboards are notorious for emitting rf
noise. Your EPIA itself may not be the real problem, I suspect it's
probably not.

 

[Sylvan Butler]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:19:35 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote:

Would it make any sense to use 6-pin RJ-12s? They're a different size than
either the RJ11 (4-pin) or the RJ45 (8-pin) - this could reduce the
likelihood of plugging it into the wrong jack.

No, an RJ12 (6-conductor) is the same physical size as an RJ11 (4
conductor) and are fully interchangable (if you only use 4 wires).
Which also means than an RJ12 will plug into an RJ45 jack and make 6
connections. Can be handy sometimes.

sdb

--
Wanted: Omnibook 800 & accessories, cheap, working or not
sdbuse1 on mailhost bigfoot.com

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:59:21 +0000 (UTC), Willem <willem@stack.nl>
wrote:

John wrote:
) On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Willem <willem@stack.nl
) wrote:
)>You completely missed the point, which is that the argument 'life could not
)>have evolved spontaneously' is invalid.
)
) ---
) What I was referring to was the possibility of different levels of
) consciousnesses coming into existence spontaneously, (God, man,
) lizard) not whether _life_ could have come into existence
) spontaneously.

Okay, then the point was that the argument 'consciousness could not have
evolved spontaneously' is invalid. Same difference.

---
There seems to be a problem here, and I think it may be because we're
considering life and consciousness differently. You seem to consider
life and consciousness to be the same thing, while I consider then to
be separate. That is, I believe life can exist without consciousness,
while (so far) consciousness can't exist without life. Do we differ
on those points?
---

)>Besides, according to most scientists, our conciousness hasn't sprung
)>up spontaneously, but has evolved over the eons.
)
) ---
) If that's true, though, there must have been a time before
) consciousness existed and then a time when the germ of consciousness
) sprang into being, i.e. came about spontaneously, unless it was
) implanted by ???
) ---

Only if 'consciousness' is a black-and-white issue. It would be equally,
if not more, logical to assume that 'consciousness' is a gliding scale, and
that we humans are simply more conscious than animals.

---
I think it _was_ a black-and-white issue when it first arose. That
is, there must have been a time when consciousness wasn't in
existence, and then all of a sudden it was. Like life, in the sense
that when it arose on this planet what was here before wasn't alive
and then all of a sudden it was. As far as the difference between us
and the animals, I think our consciousnesses are different, but I'd
hesitate to say that we're "more" conscious than they are. I'd say,
instead, that we are more intellectually advanced than they are.
---

And that still leaves the issue, if consciousness was implanted by '???',
then was '???' conscious itself, and if so where did '???' get it from ?

---
The implication is that if ??? knew that he was implanting
consciousness into an unconscious entity, then yes, ??? would have to
be conscious. As to where ??? got it, it could have been implanted
into him by some other entity, or it could have arisen spontaneously,
or if we're talking about corporeal beings, it could have been passed
down genetically.
---

)>That would mean that any higher form of conciousness could
)>very well evolve from our own. In other words,
)>it is very well possible that Man created, or will create God.
)
) ---
) It's not clear to me what you mean.
) How do you foresee that happening?

Simple. If 'God' is a higher form of consciousness, and Man will evolve
to, and/or create, a higher form of consciousness, then it is logical to
assume that Man will create, or become God.

---
Since God doesn't seem to normally be a corporeal entity or to be
bound by the the physics of our universe, and since we and our
creations are, I don't see how our evolution or that of our creators
can cause us to become God.
---

It could even very well be that God is the manifestation of the existing
(human and maybe anmal) consciousnesses put together in a group,
unfathomable by a single of its elements, bit still existant.

---
Yes, and there's also the viewpoint that God is conscious and All
There Is, so we and everything else there is in our universe are part
of God.
---

Take this one step further, and Man created God in His image.

---
Well, if you don't know what to paint, you might as well paint
something you can relate to...
---

ObPuzzle: Which Sci-Fi novels can you name in which 'Man created God'
is a theme ?

---
Dunno, but for a thought-provoking look at how Jesus might have gotten
here, "Starman" with Jeff Bridges as the Instrument of God and Karen
Allen as Mary is pretty hard to beat.

Matter of fact, how do we know that all of human evolution hasn't been
guided by extraterrestrials? Not too hard to swallow if we admit that
there are folks out there who are smarter than us and have learned how
to manipulate space and time and, for some reason, visit us on
occasion to check on how it's going...

--
John Fields

 

[Joerg]

Hello Anthony,

...... And that
brings us to the point of my post, what are you using for a display? In
my experience, displays and keyboards are notorious for emitting rf
noise. ....

Oh yes. I remember when I did an EMI case in a screen room and part of
the noise pattern just didn't make sense, didn't compute. Then it turned
out it came from the flat panel display of yours truly, the analyzer.

Sometimes holding a hand in front can pinpoint that. But in a composite
structure aircraft that might not mean much because touching anything
conductive will likely alter the noise pattern.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Parse Tree]

Noah Roberts wrote:

Willem wrote:

Noah wrote:
) And to assume that our own concienseness just popped into being you
) have to accept that the universe itself did the same. That is a

pretty

) big event, not the small thing you are making it out to be. I

don't

) agree.

This is a flawed argument. The universe did not pop into existence.
It is only perceived that way from inside the universe itself.

As soon as you move your viewpoint outside the universe, and outside
time, then you either have one entity in existence, namely the

universe,

or two entities, the universe and god. So, either you assume that

there

is a universe (there is no time from this viewpoint, so it simply

*is*),

or you assume that there is some consciousness (that simply is) which
created the universe. The assumption that there is a god is

therefore

strictly more complex, and therefore less likely, than the assumption
that there is not.


Unfortunately it doesn't work. With the universe there came time,
according to current scientific understanding (I think this is
logically proven?). So if we step outside of time there can be no
universe.

That doesn't even make sense. Time is an entity created by the universe,
not the other way around.

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ejcfv0d0p6s0k4prkgvcao5ftp7va0pbgv@4ax.com...

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:58:33 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com
wrote:

How so, shitlick?

---
Dumcunt can't even figger it out.
Size 48W twat coupled to a size 2N brain?

Yeah, honey, you've got a lot to look forward to...

Does your wife know your projecting her failings all over Usenet?

 

[keith]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:45:53 -0600, Rhyanon wrote:

Too early. No, I am simply reiterating the facts, in case you're too stupid
to grok 'em the first time around....

I got your shallow insult the first time around (must have taken you all
night). It is amazing that such shallowness can come from a 48W twat.

--
Keith

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:02:02 -0800, larwe wrote:

Ban wrote:

But why do you think it superiour to believe in science rather than
God?

Because science is fallible, and admits it - whereas religions are
fallible, and do not admit it.

Wait a minute. You just admitted it - religions are fallible. Religions
are, in fact, the creation of man.

There's no way that speaks against the existence of God.

I think there's a serious misunderstanding going on here. When I say
"God", people think I'm talking about some movie character of some giant,
angry Charlton Heston-esque caricature of Zeus, casting down lightning
bolts and mutilating male infants.

It'd make a lot more sense if we substituted the real meaning of "God",
namely "Universe", or "All That Is".

It's patently ludicrous to say, "I don't believe Universe exists" or "I
don't believe All That Is exists".

What I'm saying is that All That Is is Conscious, as well as Sentient.

And we are components of that Universe, we're not separate from it. Well,
physically, yes, but when you learn to see higher and feel deeper, you can
be aware of it All. You can learn to bridge the gap.

http://www.godchannel.com

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:23:01 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:09:50 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
richgrise@example.net> wrote:

[0] while hacking Fred's art, I saw that the 120R was in series with
the diode. I wouldn't have done that either. ;-)

What advantage can you see to adding the resistor?

If you mean the resistor from the '05 output to the base of the
PNP, it's so that there's some resistance in between a Vbe drop
and a Vsat drop. ;-)

The one from the base to Vcc is, of course, the '05's pullup,
and makes sure that the PNP turns all the way off.

And if you mean the resistor in series with the catch diode,
Fred put that there and I took it out. ;-)

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Aunty Kreist]

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@stmartin.edu> wrote in message
news:1106756376.023695.118160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Kevin Aylward wrote:
Willem wrote:
Noah wrote:
) I also object to you saying ignorant peasants invented god. It
is
not ) ignorant to believe in god.

If god created the universe, then who created god ?

Which sums it up.

For most god believers they take the view that our consciousness
could
not come about on its own. That consciousness is so amazing that it
must
have been designed and built by someone else, of *greater*
consciousness. The obvious issue with that is that if one cant accept

that the fact of our own consciences requiring no help, how an earth
can
one account for an even *greater* consciousness to exist? If one can
accept that a truly stupendous consciousness of a god can just exist,

surly is *easier* to accept that a lesser consciousness can just
exist.

It is possible that I popped into being, it is also possible that I
have always existed...if I am not a member of the universe but am just
visiting. There are a lot of possibilities...but more to your point:

Only things in the universe need a beginning or end. Your concepts
assume laws that are not universal. I can accept that god always
existed because I accept that he created the universe, and with the
universe he created time. Science accepts that with the universe came
time, before (if you can say before time) the universe time did not
exist. If god created time he existed without it. There can be no
beginning or end without time therefore God has always existed. It is
a very logical conclusion given the premise.

If God exists, and if God created the universe, and if with the
universe came time (as the big bang theory dictates) then God exists
outside of time...

There is factual evidence that shows how the big bang theory is improbable.

 

[Noah Roberts]

Parse Tree wrote:

But you are wrong there. Anyone that wants to CAN see the evidence for
God.


I'm talking about seeing evidence, not seeing something that is not
evidence and calling it evidence. The two are very different.

And?

 

[Noah Roberts]

John Fields wrote:

Why is what I
have seen and studied less valid than the other?


---
It isn't, but some who haven't seen God detest those who have because
they consider themselves important enough to have seen God, yet that
"right" hasn't been afforded them.

I have to firmly disagree there. I think that right has been afforded
everyone.

 

[Noah Roberts]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

You are obviously an intelligent person and have spent much time
analyzing such things. Of course, so am I and so _have_ I.

You spent a lot of time calling me a fool for believing in something
that cannot be proven yet you yourself have claimed something exists
after proving that it cannot be proven to:

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html

My opinions and analysis are just as valid as yours. But you believe
yours to be the only valid way of thinking. That is too bad because
there can be no discourse that way. It is sad because you won't be able
to learn from me, and I like everyone have something to teach.

I have come to the conclusion in my studies and meditations that there
can be no learning or true study without doubt. You cannot really
believe in God if you don't doubt and analyze your own belief. I think
it is likewise for any subject or method of study.

Here is something to read since you think you are too smart for me:
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/the_conceptualist_argument.htm

As with your site I have not read it all, but I will. A lot of back and
forth going on on that site. But it is more rational than any of this,
including you and I, have been.

One question though...your website makes a point that you got an A in
Relativity...what happened to the rest of your classes? No, I am just
kidding, maybe yours were harder than mine...

About this site:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html

I don't see how it proves anything. The gist of the argument is that
because complex molecules occur on places other than Earth then it
follows that they were not created for a purpose? Correct me if I am
wrong because that is my interpretation. It just goes from X to Y
without much explaination. Maybe they are saying that they _have_ no
purpose and are therfore not created with purpose? I can only ask why
it would follow, because I just don't see it. In fact the page itself
gives a purpose...to seed life on planets...so they must be just saying
they were not created, but I just don't see the evidence for that in the
argument.

Honestly, I don't get the argument obviously.

Put plainly, there are a LOT of inteligent people, including myself
(because I am not ignorant as you keep asserting), who believe in God.
There are many logical arguments for the existance of God, and there are
counters, and counters of the counters.

I don't mind arguing the point. I can handle people saying God doesn't
exist, and I can relate to that position. What I can't handle, or
understand, is people calling me ignorant because I disagree; because
for some reason their ideas and thoughts are more valid than mine.

I am going to hold onto my belief. First, because I believe I have seen
evidence of God (I mispoke earlier, I have not seen _God_ because that
wouldn't be possible with my beliefs...I saw a manifestation). Second
off, because if there is no God then there is no point in anything. The
universe ends and that is that...I don't like that idea very much and it
would probably disturb me a lot if I had to accept it. Not to mention
the pure tragidy of death. And if I don't have a soul (not something
you argued), and nobody else does either, then we are just meat automita
and we don't exist and morals are meaningless. I really can't accept that.

I do like your argument that conciousness is an emotion. What is really
cool about it is that emotion is irrational. Scripture says we are made
in God's image. If by that it means our conciousness, then God is an
emotion? Which means God is irrational...which is strange. But,
catholisism claims God is 'love', which is an emotion...a very
irrational one. This is something I might think on for a while.

See, everyone has something to say. I have taken what you have said in,
and used it in my own study. And I thank you for it. Obviously this is
not what you had in mind when you wrote it, but I took steps you
couldn't because you don't think that way. Which is why God made all of
us different.

What is different about reading your opinions in your site is I didn't
feel like I was being talked down to. In fact it took quite a while for
me to open up and allow myself to read what you said because you have
been such a beligerant ass in this forum. I will continue to read and
see if it is useful to me, and if it indeed says anything about the
existance of God. It also seems that it might have application to a pet
subject of mine: AI.

Which brings up the question, you even read any Turing? Turing makes a
pretty convincing argument that a computer program could have a soul.

Your song is well composed, good mix too. The style isn't exactly
something I would listen to a lot but I can definately appreciate it.
My Gibson is an 82 SG...I have had it for over 15 years and would be
hard pressed to part with it.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

learner@juno.com wrote:

In <HwTJd.241212$Z7.55206@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, on 01/26/05
at 08:59 PM, "Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> said:

It doesn't. What makes it so is that there is zero evidence for god.
There *only* reason for the concept of god, is because someone said
so.

There are countless records of people who have SEEN God. I don't mean
preachers on TV begging for money. Just because you choose to
disbelieve them, doesn't mean it is not evidence.

Sure, in *principle* we can claim anything is "evidence". So what. I'
not concerned with an arbitary anything goes definition of evidence. I
am inherently implying real evidence, not fancy claims. Now show me some
credible evidence.

Show me a video of such sightings. Show me some evidence that the
"person" claimed to be god, is in fact god.

Anyone who starts giving you any evidence is going to be ridiculed by
you and others, so why would it be of any value to try and enlighten
you, and show you some things that you obviously do not want to hear
about? Most would not cast their pearls before swine.

Oh dear... The believers belief in an invisible, can do anything supreme
being, and I'm the one with a problem?

You have to stop saying there is no evidence, and start saying that
you just don't believe the evidence.

Nope. Evidence is hard evidence. Physical records such as video,
voltmeter readings, parting of the Atlantic ocean sort of stuff.

If someone claims to see a god it is meaningless unless such a god
provides evidence, say a miracle, that he is indeed what is claimed.
Present this evidence.

Show me some bloody evidence that this so called god done anything.

It was reported that He was crucified, buried, and rose from the
dead. Of course, you reject that evidence, which is the testimony of
hundreds of people, but that does not mean it is not evidence.

It is *not* evidence that would be accepted in court. It is *all*
hearsay. There are *no* accounts of Jesus written until many years after
his death. There are no 1st hand accounts that such a man even existed.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

So, no there is no allowable evidence.

There, you have the bloody evidence. What more do you want? I ask for
evidence that there was ever life on Mars, and some people point to
stuff NASA is seeing, but I reject that evidence. Does that mean
there is no evidence?

Nope. The big bang has nothing to do with a god.

You absolutely, postively, for sure, and without any doubt, have NO
proof that such a statement is correct. None whatsoever.

Sure, nothing is known absolute. So what. My statement is a statement of
belief but not faith. Its based on the evidence. To date, science has no
need to postulate a god. Physics works very well without such a concept.
The immense success of the existing, non god included, physics is
extremely compelling evidence that a god does not exist.

The onus is on proving that a god exists, not that he doesn't. I can
claim with the same level of "evidence" that pink unicorns created the
big bang.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/gaps.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html

If I send you to web sites defending the existence of God, will you go
check them all out?

15,000 hits on goggle.

Google, "the excuse for the people who cannot make up their own mind"

For every web site you can find to support your position, I can find
ten to support the position that there is credible evidence for the
existence of God.

Oh...and what *credible* evidence would this be?

Chart recorder?, video?, photographs? of miracles.

Your dreaming.

You can say you don't believe it, but it IS
evidence.

All your doing here is splitting hairs on semantics. Sure, in the pure
form of the word "evidence", you have a point, but such evidence is
immediately dismissible as it is no more then unsupported words. Anyone
can say anything.

If all you have is the verbiage of deluded believers, you are one sad
puppy to believe such "evidence". Hey do you want to buy a car, great
little runner...

Like how anyone can be so daft to not understand the relevance of:

"Hey, I can make myself invisible, but only if your back is turned to
me".

Wise up.

There are thousands of reports and histories of people who have seen
God. Just because you have not seen Him, does not make Him invisible.
You are arguing yourself right into a corner with that one

Yearh right. You just can't be serious matey.

Hey, I saw Elvis last night. Indeed, he was having dinner with Buddy
Holly.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

That is, based on extensive evidence for evolution and
*zero* actual evidence for an actual god.

This position has got to go.

The point is that QM strongly suggests that a god cannot be all
knowing. That is, a god that can predict everything, essentially
means QM is wrong. Considering the success of QM, this one is a tad
hard to swallow.

I disagree with this logic.

I'm sure you do. You have amply demonstrated you know f'all about logic
and science.

If there is a God, why cannot QM and God
co-exist. You keep saying the universe is random, but random only
relates to the human brain.

You have no idea what your talking about. You don't have a science
degree do you?

Just because you cannot keep track of it
all, does not mean a superior being cannot. You think pretty highly
of yourself....

Indeed I do.

Oh dear... your way out of your depth. Hint. Einstein tried this
approach for 30 years in his later life, i.e. hidden determinacy. It is
generally accepted today by physicists that he was up the garden path.

I'm not going to waste my time going over the details of the extensive
efforts professional physicists have already done in an effort to
support your niave view above. Look it up. Its all been done to death.

What's you point, oh..its that "god of the gaps" thing again...

Is this you new, cool, buzzword that you read somewhere?

Yep. It sums up and demolishes your naive argument.

Nope. We have objective evidence on the effects of gravity. We have
no
evidence for a god.

Sigh..... Yes we do. You just reject it.


No, no one does. Please present god.

Read the scripture. Not only the Bible, but from other civilizations
that say the same thing. Eye witness accounts are not proof? Oh,
unless you are the eyewitness, it is not credible. :-(

There are no eye witness accounts.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

We have *bishops* telling us that god did this, god says that, but
diddly squat for actual evidence of such claimed deeds. Any
"evidence"
that there is completely contradictory, www.evilbible.com.

Again with the dopey web site referalls? Who cares what some bonehead
threw up (literally) on a web page?

It it is generally accepted by theological scholars that the bible is
one big pile of contradictions. That is, accounts of the same event do
not agree.

I can show you web pages with
eyewitness accounts of the existence of God. Oh, that's right, you
reject that, but its still as valid as your idiotic evilbible.com
site.

Oh..just what specific points do you disagree with? Are you claiming
that the quoted chapter and verses do agree with other?

You are one brainwashed religious sad puppy indeed. The evidence is
clearly there that the Bible is Babble, yet you simply choose to ignore
it as it goes against your programming.

Oh dear... The Babble is the only "evidence" for god that exists.

No, not even close, but at least you almost admit that it is evidence.

I put it in quotes.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.