Image of the day

From the
ATWB Customer Gallery

Farm Pond

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Posts Made By: Ron Zick

January 5, 2003 10:49 PM Forum: Religion

Re: Nothing interesting here

Posted By Ron Zick

I'll discuss epistemology or existentialism with you if you want.

January 26, 2003 03:51 PM Forum: Religion

Re: Another point of view (out of context)

Posted By Ron Zick

It is unfortunate that we all have preconcieved ideas and expectations form are fellow man based on labels which are bastardized by the actions of some who reflect very little of the belief system. Klu Klux Klan and Christianity seems like one that is the epitome of the situation.

February 15, 2003 03:14 PM Forum: Religion

Re: Hominids, not just for breakfast anymore.

Posted By Ron Zick

This has been a really civil thread with some really good questions.
The questions I have with this and the question of the soul is:
1. The biochemical reactions in brain cells is considered to be our thoughts.
2. All of our memories are stored as molecules or chains of molecules.
Now these statements are pretty well accepted both by Christians and non-Christians. My question is, is this view or approach on brain function, actually correct? If evolution is completely true and correct then this view would have to be correct, and this would basically eliminate much of the theological debate and totally remove any differentiation between man and animals. Now the Christian side of the discussion has pretty much accepted the present scientific explaination, since the Bible makes zero reference to brain function and only refers to our personality essence as a soul and Christians have really failed to think through all of the implications.

Is our brain actually the seat of our being or is it the physical organic interface of something metaphysical, the soul? I raise this question for a variety of reasons.

1. If the present scientific explaination is true, then a persons soul, or his essence is dependant on the overall health and proper function of his brain. Any brain disfunction would directly decrease or eliminate a persons soul or essence, this is a position I can not accept for many reasons.
2. Considering how much computer memory space just one high definition image takes, is it reasonable to expect that a person's complete life, memories, experiences, abilities be condensed and stored in the billions of brain cells we each have?
3.If everything really is in the brain then in essence we should be able to actually sort of distill our personality out of the molecules that are in our brain.

If the brain is only an interface then there will be no problems answering No. 1 ,2, and 3.

If our brain is not an interface but actually "us" then how do we answer questions No. 1,2, and 3? I would really be interested in some thoughts from some of the "deep thinkers" out there?

The actual answer to this question could have some very profound effects on science, medicine, specifically neurology, and theology.

March 2, 2003 07:35 PM Forum: Meade


Posted By Ron Zick

The mounting bolt pattern is the same. That's why the 12in. is refered as being to heavy for the mount, the 10in. is rated as adequate, and the 8in. as over kill. If you look at the pictures the fork spacing is different between the models but the base unit is the same.

March 31, 2003 03:49 PM Forum: Religion

Re: Peter Arnett

Posted By Ron Zick

NBC saved a slight amount of credability with me but I question if it was actually journalistic ethics. I wonder could legal liability have been the motivation for them to take the action they did. In my book Arnett is at best an absolute moron, I'm giving him the benefit of doubt, or else his actions were treasonous. I wonder what some fancy lawyers could do with the information that he blabered in a wrongful death lawsuit with one of our dead soldiers or POWs. No matter how he personally feels about the war he should have kept his mouth shut on Iraqi news. When US military personel are in harms way, for a US citizen or the representative of a US corp. to give information to the enemy or to willingly take part in their propaganda machine is treason in my book.

As a side note, I heard the story discussed this morning on WGN of Chicago. It really alarms me at the number of callers who called in expressing concern over what a bad deal poor Peter is getting and how his right of free speech and freedom of the press was being suppressed. I really don't think people understand what war actually is any more. No matter where a person stands on the present military action, I would think that a reasonable thinking person would understand that war debates are appropiate on our shores in the right venue. To voice disagreement as part of the enemey's propaganda machine in their country just escapes me. Excuse my rant but this his been a real hot button for me.

November 7, 2003 09:47 PM Forum: Religion

Re: What are the limits of science? pt.1

Posted By Ron Zick

These are an interesting set of questions. I am coming from a rather different view than most who have answered.

1.No for a variety of reasons. The scientific method is usually addressing questions that apply to the physical universe. The danger is that since we are limiting ourselves to only the physical universe, our questions never address the possibilities outside of this reference frame. The theologian many times makes the same mistake and ignores the questions of the physical universe laying outside his realm of the spiritual. Now in actuallity the scientific method is assuming that knowledge is knowable and predictable. The conservative theologian also approaches his quest for knowledge with the same precepts. Ultimately the two will eventually be asking the same questions. I also personally believe that God limits and has limited man's discovery of knowledge, this is the only thing that has prevented us from destroying ourselves and I do not mean to imply that we shouldn't ask the questions, it's just that the answers might not be found, not that they don't exist.

2. Yes. We are finite creatures living in a physical universe. Any questions outside our realm of existence are scientifically unanswerable but philosophically and theologically potentially answerable.

3. Yes

November 7, 2003 09:49 PM Forum: Religion

Re: What are the limits of science? pt.2

Posted By Ron Zick

4. Yes. If the universe were truly amoral then there would be no need to ask any questions of morality. The fact that we are even aware of the concept of morality is significant. To me this is a key point in the existence of God. If science limits itself to only the physically testable portion of the universe, then it has in essence denied the existence of anything beyond the physical universe. To attempt to define good and evil from this limited perspective seems very futile to me and also very subjective. This is where the conservative theologian who would believe in absolute truth and definitive good and evil would strongly disagree with the naturalistic scientist. I find it ironic that the theologian progresses from relativism to absolutes and the scientist would progress from absolutes to relativism.

The whole concept of the possible existence of multiple parallel universes is mind boggling but so is free will. I don't think that Heaven is these multiple universes, if they exist at all, but transcends these. If the multiple universes exist, I believe that they might be more related to our free will more then the place where God dwells, in essence we might actually be navigating them but don't realize it. Our actions and choices would determine our destiny.

One last thought. The naturalistic scientist basically assumes that the physical universe operates by the same rules today as it did yesterday since it's beginning. The theologian, if coming from a Biblical worldview, believes that the universe dose not operate by the same rules today that it did when it was created. If sin has corrupted the universe, then the universe we observe today is in aspects broken. The answers to scientific questions from physical evidences would then need to filtered, analagous to trying to figure out how a car appeared and functioned before it was in a wreck while it is sitting in the junk yard.

March 14, 2004 01:12 PM Forum: Religion

Re: Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

Posted By Ron Zick

You a very astute in realizing and seeing the problem of an allergorical "Adam and Eve". Many Christians fail to see the inconsistency and falacies that an allegorical view of the creation story yields. This also gets back to Biblical inerrancy.

Now I am a "literal seven day creationist" that also realizes that this view is in conflict with some of our current undestandings of the mechanics of the universe but also realize that out understanding and knowledge of the universe is very very limited. Just think, if Dark matter and energy actually do exist, then we currently have zero knowledge, except for it's possible existance, of 96% of the total universe.

I would challenge you on "the fact that we evolved from lower mammals." At best this is only conjecture. That conclusion can only be reached by assumption of certain key issues in interpeting the fossil record and our limted understanding of the workings of the universe. If we had absolute and full knowledge of the universe's workings, which we don't, then I would be very accepting of the evolutionary model as it is. In the short time I have lived, some 50 yrs., I have seen science overturn it's views of certain "facts" more times than I can count and especially "evolution" and cosmosology. Now I realize that this is part of the scientific process but we need to be very careful in claiming what is absolute truth and percieved understanding.

I believe that it is critical for us to realize what we really do know, which is quite limted, and the difference between what we think we know which covers most things.

Even though I would stongly disagree with Gary P's aetheism, his conclusion and theology or should I say aethology is very consistant if you are to accept an evolutionary worldview. If a person is to "accept" an allegorical view of the creation story, then ultimately everything in the Bible should be treated as allegorical and then ,yes, you are correct, there is no need for a blood scarifice or any other sacrifice since this is all just allegory.

If the Bible is not true in all of it's parts then it can not be correct in any of it's parts. We can not accept any of it's writings and views as being good, since foundationaly it is deceiptful. However if the Bible is true, than we need to construct our theology and philosophy on it's truths. Ultimately Jesus is who he claims to be, the Son of God and God is God.

Some might call me and others here narrow minded but actually we have much in common with Gary P and our reasoning, we have just come to some very different conclusions.

May 31, 2004 12:11 PM Forum: Politics

A different view

Posted By Ron Zick

From Breakpoint Website:

BreakPoint with Charles Colson

May 31, 2004

The families were glad to have their soldier sons safely home from Iraq—but the soldiers themselves were angry. “We should have stayed and finished our mission,” one sergeant told a reporter. One of his buddies agreed. “When you see the poverty and people living in mud houses next to Saddam’s palaces, the work we were doing seems justified,” he explained. “It had valor.”

These amazing comments came, not from American servicemen returning home, but from Spanish soldiers—men who had been brought home by their new prime minister, Zapatero. While some of these men were initially opposed to the war, they told the Boston Globe they regretted having to “abandon what they felt was a useful humanitarian mission.”

Clearly, these soldiers knew that they were not there to conquer and kill. They were there to help heal a war-torn nation.

And this is the same spirit American soldiers have exhibited. I’ve talked to many of them in the last few weeks; they have a sense of nobility in what they are doing. They know their mission is worthy.

The behavior of the vast majority of soldiers echoes the values and valor of previous generations of military men we remember on Memorial Day. As the late historian Stephen Ambrose so memorably put it, reflecting on World War II, “The most terrifying sight to most civilians was a squad of armed teenage boys in uniform.” Whether it was the Red Army in Warsaw, the Japanese in Manila, or the Germans in Holland, this sight meant trouble.

There was one exception. “Everywhere in the world,” Ambrose wrote, “the sight of a twelve-man squad of GIs brought joy to people’s hearts.” Why? “Because the sight of those American kids meant cigarettes, candy, c-rations, and freedom. They had come not to conquer or terrorize but to liberate.”

This is why our soldiers are in Iraq today: not as conquerors, but as liberators. And ordinary Iraqis know that when they see coalition soldiers, they are not seeing those who will torture and rape and steal, but they are seeing those who will share their food and water with a hungry child.

When the news surfaced that soldiers were abusing Iraqi prisoners, many in the press gleefully jumped on this story in order to blame everybody from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to President Bush.

What most failed to note was that the story made headlines precisely because it was so extraordinary. Americans don’t do things like this, and the bad apples that did it do not represent us.

If Saddam Hussein were still in charge, the torment would have involved, not humiliation, but chopping off hands and feet. And yes, only a handful of our 135,000 soldiers took part. But if we are in Iraq for noble purposes (and we are), we must judge ourselves by the standards of a noble people, and we will.

This is how we prove “the rectitude of our intentions,” as the Declaration of Independence puts it. This is how we prove to a cynical world the truth of the words of that Spanish soldier: that the mission—and the men and woman who carry it out—are noble. A just war, as Aquinas argued, is an expression of Christian love for one’s neighbor.

Our soldiers in Iraq are part of a great tradition of duty, honor, and valor, and that is a tradition we as a free people can celebrate this Memorial Day.

August 9, 2004 10:26 PM Forum: Politics

Re: Stem cell

Posted By Ron Zick

The site is probably somewhat biased, however the information is also true.

I see the whole embryonic stem cell issue as a canard. The real issue is MONEY and CONTROL. The adult stem cell research, which does not have the ethical dilemas, has been progressing quite well, though very quietly, in some high profile labs such as MIT and John Hopkins.

All ethical issues aside, the adult stem cell research will probably end up with a procedure or process as the treatment. The patient will be his or her own donor and the pharmacetuical companies will not have a customer for life from these treatments. More than likely, the treatment will end up being available in most medical facilities and very affordable.

The embryonic stem cell research is going to end up with a drug company or other large corporation owning the rights to the stem cells the patient receives. Currently there is only a handful of corporations owning all of the rights to the available embryonic stem cells and all rights to any future discoveries. The patient will also more than likely be destined to be on anti-rejection meds for the rest of their life.

Follow the money:

Here is Wicell's, which is non-profit shell corporation for the University of Wisconson-Madison, original agreement with the National Institue of Health . Note who retains the commercial rights to the research, the money.

I would be interested in hearing opinions on the ethics of corporations owning the legal rights to someones DNA. This would seem to me to be taking property ownership and a type of slavery to new heights.