Messages From George Jiri Opletal
1 - 20 of 881

Talking Snakes. [1]
Yes, I understand you point. This inner feeling of self which each human has, is wrongly used by people to attribute some useful existance to other objects. The best explaination for the origin of this condition I have read, is by Richard Leakey in Origins Reconsidered. He explains that it is firstly apparent with the studies on higher primates, that their level of understanding of the world is largest excluding modern humans. It is also obvious that the social structure

Logic against Creation - 1 of infinity
Wow, I never heard it. I put that one in my armoury. I really this a book writen with small paradoxes like yours would make a mockery of literal biblical interpretation. Well done! Regard George

A question
NOTE: IceEdit 1.40 44764 Although I am fairly confident that I know the answer, I would like input on the question, 'What happen to 'you' after death?' (the question is strickly undefined in this form but please, input valued) Regard George

Logic Against Creation (b)
Oh.. the dating..we you've convinced me. THe scientists with their years of training are wrong and you are right. I myself am a complete idiot when participate in radiocarbon dating at my uni. It is clearly apparent here, that your response is inposed on you by your dogma. Although you have no explaination, it MUST be wrong. LA> GO> Civilizations passed through the flood period undisturbed You missed the point, the original was the Gilgohmesh myth and if these

Talking Snakes. [1]
I understand your reasoning. By the way, the universe is most likely bounded and finite in volume (although without boundaries.eheh!). What I was meaning in my very short statement which was not well explained anyhow, was that human beings can be reduced to complicated atomic systems. With no physical quantity representing the indentity of that individual. The concept of a self awareness becomes analogous to a computer program. A death, the system breaks down (very reductionistic, I know but what

A question
Harold Ehnhuus, Well, Psychicaly? It this function depends on the brain which I bet it will, than this 'Psychicaly' is material effects. your brain function would stop well before decompostion. Anyway, the question again, What happens to your perception of the world when to die? (the ability to experience time, for one example)

A question
like 'You' meaning the system of particle and everything (fields, REAL fields like electromagnetic...not some psychkissmybut field) associated with your existance (man, its hard to define). You got it right with that sentence about consciousness, it disappears with the brain..but WHAT THEN? Think about why that should be the end? (no magic here!) Regards George

Alternative 3
Ah, here you are. You never responded to me in the Star Trek echo, so I ask you again. What is your purpose? I mean it seems to me after seeing your messages in all kinds of echos, you are fairly sincere with these beliefs. So explain your self to us, if you please.

What is 'I'?
Oh, I think I understand you there. I was actually refering to the volume of the universe, the actually spacial distance. It is bounded for a number of reasons (it is a bit complicated but ask if interested). But it still does'nt satisify me. Studing in 2nd year, I think my grasp of physics is above average and I also feel that I can explain EVERY phenomena (physical) in the universe at least very roughly. This probably sounds cocky but

Logic Against Laurie
Well, thank you for that. I have given Laurie much more debating time with me than most other creationists in some hope that he will logically discuss the matter instead of the continues bombardment of quotes I receive. I will push him on this point about C-14 dating, and if it is not properly addressed WITHOUT the use of quotations, I will have no choice but to side with you on this issue. The c-14 dating issue went something like

Logic Against Laurie (b)3
Ah...Laurie fed this quote to me! I have warned him not to use quotes but logical discussions, WHY can he simply accept this?

Creationist Folly - Part 4 of 5
But the termites were members now of Gods kingdom, Noah said 'Don't eat my boat!' and threatened them with that animal that is located at the front of the dictionary. The ants fully understood this and proceeded to famine for 300 days. Finally, when land was found, the ants put their weight back on and became completely stupid. Genesis blah:blah (via literal intepretation)

Talking Snakes. [1]
well....ar.......ar........ar........ar........ar.......ar......ar.......ar.. ....ar.......ar.......rar.......ar......a.r.......rar.........rara.......rar. ..............ra...............ra.n..........ra..n...........ra.n.......ra..n .......ra..n.d...........rad..n.d.m.............rand..om.........random...... ........random A random process or atoms produced this life 'phenomona'. Still composed of these atoms I can not prove this, as 'I' do not exist. 'I' can not be defined. My atomic components exist but not 'I'. Regards, a very large pile of atoms.

Physics and Complexity
NOTE: IceEdit 1.40 44764 Is there any evidence that the basic law of physics change for large multibody systems? For example does the super-position principle change? If it did all kinds of new phenomona would exist! This has constantly worried me, being a pure reductionist. So I hope for positive feedback. Regard George

the ark
we to? You can not use this as an equivalent arguement to Jason Huff's question! You assume that human experience can be trusted in such early enviroment. It clearly was in the times of Noah and Jason's question is meaningful but in the earlier universe, a lot of questions are meaningless. Massive gravitational fields and the quantum level, no theory exists. In fact matter, with the appearance of the Higgs field well after the singularity, matter had no inertia. You

ETs and all that!
NOTE: IceEdit 1.40 44764 Firstly, I am the new science advisor at U.F.O discussions echo. I try to bring some rational to peoples arguements involving scientific matters especially physics (all is a subset of it anyway). It is good to see the moderators there, understand the need to have this position to keep the discussions with the universal bounds. Anyhows, I want to hear peoples objection to, 1) U.F.O.s existing around earth (ufos here undefined) 2) U.F.O.s being Extraterrestrial vehicles

Frank M. Fred R.
How do I get the Philosophy echo on the BBS I use. Is there some number I should be aware off?

Me, the Creationist
have Hey, I do not need a theory, 'God works is funny law breaking ways'

Frank Massingill, "sadly mistaken."
A goof?! Are you the person who flames everybodies ideas in th first reply. I bet you have not thought about what I just stated. Firstly you are wrong on this: There is no 'I', 'you', you DID NOT understand. I told you to forget the self and then you claim 'I somehow wake up' blah blah How the hell do you attach some identity to individual atoms. 'you' the system of atoms dies, the atoms are scattered. And 'you'

the ark
and Look, space/time and matter are firmly linked in General Relativity. Mass affects both space and time while these quantities affect mass. If you do not like it, put your idea in a physics journal and see what happens. Your forget the linkage to the development of humans. It was a slow, RANDOM process which no one could of predicted. We are insignificant and you can't accept it. A why should science be able to know everything? We can explain