• Have you tried out dark mode?! Scroll to the bottom of any page to find a sun or moon icon to turn dark mode on or off!

diy solar

diy solar

We will be tested very soon..!!!

Can the pump get damaged when it's starved for fuel?

It certainly could. It wasn't totally starved for fuel but you could see the fuel rail pressure (common rail) would tail off under high demand.

Those pumps had a 200k mile warranty due to factory issues.

This 2002 is a little old for that. I own a few LB7's, I like them. My 2003 Duramax work truck needed injectors and had a cracked head a couple of years ago at around 175K miles. That truck came from TX and I don't drive it in the winter.

Good find on your part though. The only thing I have found that tackles that diesel algae/bacteria goop is acetone.
This is what I use, Bio Kleen. I dump it right in the storage tank when the coop tanker fills it.
 
it is not "accidental randomness" and each positive trait which are often tiny changes to an existing one, is reinforced by adding to survival of the individuals with that trait.
don't think of 'suddenley a big tooth appears' - consider millions of small incrimental changes, some beneficial, and some not, the beneficial ones carry into the next generation - reinforced, - while the negative ones are less likely to carry forward. It makes perfect sense. And continues today. The famous case of grey moths in London during the early industrial revolution, which deposited black coal soot on local trees, making them dark and the moths stood out being grey. Those moths adapted to become the colour of the soot. All on their own. Adaptations are underway at all times in all environments.
You have clearly not done the math, nor the research, that would free you from the web of lies atheists have spun in order to put forward a godless origin theory.

Those "pepper moths" you speak of....the photographs used to support that theory were fabricated, with moths being glued to tree trunks for the picture. In actual fact, the moths do not typically land on the trunks, where their colors would supposedly have made them the targets of birds, thus leading to the extinction of the contrasted ones: they rest, as moths often do in nature, on the underside of a leaf. Neither light- nor dark-colored peppermoths would match the green foliage--so that theory is already a tall tale.

The average gene has over 1000 base pairs in its DNA. There are not large numbers of copy errors when replicating, which is, of course, why scientists chose to speak of millions of years for these changes to have occurred. However, given the math, even that is simply impossible. They needed perhaps trillions of years or more--to the point extinctions would obliterate any organism before it had opportunity to see our present day. By far the majority of DNA mutations are deleterious, many fatal.

Evolutionists suppose that there have been three or four billion years since life arose on earth. The human genome has about three billion base pairs, which means almost one base pair per year, on average, would have been added. In fact, one would assume that each base pair mutated multiple times during the development of life to its modern form, meaning at least ten billion mutations given just two or three per year. This is a much higher rate than is observed today. Some genomes are much bigger than the human genome, making the problem worse for them. This is not even counting the harmful mutations that are removed from the genome by natural selection; with them, the number of required mutations could be in the trillions, amounting to at least 200 or 300 mutations per year, or about one every two days on average.

Now, consider that for a specific mutation to be retained and passed on in the genome, added to by the next generation, it must be that same individual that experienced the first beneficial mutation which becomes the ancestor of the next generation. How many humans are able to give birth themselves at the ripe old age of one or two days?
 
Those "pepper moths" you speak of....the photographs used to support that theory were fabricated, with moths being glued to tree trunks for the picture.

Citation please. Even the specific mutation has been discovered:


The rest of your text clearly shows a misunderstanding of the mechanisms behind evolution.

/a godless atheist
 
Citation please. Even the specific mutation has been discovered:


The rest of your text clearly shows a misunderstanding of the mechanisms behind evolution.

/a godless atheist
There is a complete break down today
If belief in experts
It’s been replaced with faith in Facebook twitter and social media posts by people you know.

Doesn’t matter if your internet friend doesn’t know anything about science or engineering
It’s about having connection to the person that shares the information

People are disconnected from the truth
Don’t believe what they read or see.
They rely on what their friends tell them and believe now
No idea how you can fix that
 
Citation please.
I don't have the book anymore. It was in my high-school biology textbook which I studied decades ago. I did a search just now and found the following points made by some scientists on this subject, courtesy of Wikipedia (which of course, in typical Darwinian style, provides more in favor of the peppered-moth theory than against it--but at least they did have this bit):

Phillip E. Johnson, a co-founder of the creationist intelligent design movement, said that the moths "do not sit on tree trunks", that "moths had to be glued to the trunks" for pictures, and that the experiments were "fraudulent" and a "scam." The intelligent design advocate Jonathan Wells wrote an essay on the subject, a shortened version of which appeared in the 24 May 1999 issue of The Scientist, claiming that "The fact that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks invalidates Kettlewell's experiments". Wells further wrote in his 2000 book Icons of Evolution that "What the textbooks don't explain, however, is that biologists have known since the 1980s that the classical story has some serious flaws. The most serious is that peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged." However, peppered moths do rest on tree trunks on occasion, and Nick Matzke states that there is little difference between the 'staged' photos and 'unstaged' ones.

It may be worth noting that none of the references Wikipedia includes for the above section yet existed when I learned the truth from my biology textbook, published years prior. So this understanding cannot be unique to these proponents of it. My memory is likely inaccurate, given the passage of time, but in my mind's eye I can almost visualize a photo included in the textbook showing how the peppered moths were glued to the tree trunk for the famous article--something like putting glue on the moth's abdomen, or positioning it on the trunk with tweezers. I don't remember the details of the image anymore, but the textbook had something more than just a conjecture to support this account.

There is a complete break down today
If belief in experts
It’s been replaced with faith in Facebook twitter and social media posts by people you know.

Doesn’t matter if your internet friend doesn’t know anything about science or engineering
It’s about having connection to the person that shares the information
I learned this fact from a biology textbook, before Facebook was even thought of. If it matters, I have never to this day had a FaceBook account, nor Twitter, nor other social media--not even LinkedIn. I rarely run across anything from FB, and when I do, it's the result of an online search, such as something advertised for sale. I never socialize in such places. My interest and knowledge of science is firsthand, with no need to rely on a friends network. I do, however, find internet sources of information convenient when asked by others to provide evidence for something.
 
It was in my high-school biology textbook which I studied decades ago.

This is why you should keep up to date on research, and not just accept things in an old book you read decades ago, never to revisit. Science progresses, refines, and discards what is not true and either confirms criticism correct, or false - even if it can take time to get there because things are complex. The next section in the Wiki:

From 2001 to 2007, Majerus carried out experiments in Cambridge to resolve the various criticisms of Kettlewell's experiment. During his experiment, he noted the natural resting positions of peppered moths. Of the 135 moths examined, over half were on tree branches, mostly on the lower half of the branch; 37% were on tree trunks, mostly on the north side; and only 12.6% were resting on or under twigs. Following correspondence with Hooper, he added an experiment to find if bats, not birds, could be the main predators. He observed a number of species of bird actually preying on the moths, and found that differential bird predation was a major factor responsible for the decline in carbonaria frequency compared to typica.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#cite_note-swedentalk-23"><span>[</span>23<span>]</span></a> He described his results as a complete vindication of the natural selection theory of peppered moth evolution, and said "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#cite_note-indy-54"><span>[</span>53<span>]</span></a>

Majerus died before he could complete the writing up of his experiments, so the work was carried on by Cook, Grant, Saccheri, and James Mallet, and published on 8 February 2012 as "Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#cite_note-pandas_080212-55"><span>[</span>54<span>]</span></a> The experiment became the largest ever in the study of industrial melanism, involving 4,864 individuals in a six-year investigation, and it confirmed that melanism in moths is a genuine example of natural selection involving camouflage and predation. Their concluding remark runs: "These data provide the most direct evidence yet to implicate camouflage and bird predation as the overriding explanation for the rise and fall of melanism in moths."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#cite_note-Cook2012-11"><span>[</span>11<span>]</span></a>

Coyne said he was "delighted to agree with this conclusion [of Majerus's experiment], which answers my previous criticisms about the Biston story."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#cite_note-Coyne_1202012-56"><span>[</span>55<span>]</span></a>
 
This is why you should keep up to date on research, and not just accept things in an old book you read decades ago, never to revisit. Science progresses, refines, and discards what is not true and either confirms criticism correct, or false - even if it can take time to get there because things are complex. The next section in the Wiki:
The last sentence you included of the Wiki quote shows plainly that the researchers who published the newer "findings" were prejudiced to begin with. They were looking for a particular result, and they found it. That is not surprising. What would be surprising is to look for something and NOT find it. The latter case would be an indicator of true objectivity--a very rare commodity in today's world of scientists.

One thing you may note from what is said about those newer "findings": no mention is made of moths landing on leaves....at all. Any entomologist who has been in the field has surely noticed the affinity of moths to leaves. It is a very natural place for them to alight and rest. So the question comes to my mind--how many moths did these researchers miss? And the next question is, was this deliberate, or in ignorance? (Neither deliberately stacking the statistics in their favor, nor ignorance on their part of the moths' habits, would be particularly flattering or ingratiating to their cause.). There is a third option: Perhaps they did study the moths' positioning on leaves, but this did not make it into the condensed Wikipedia summary. I do not, however, know where to access their full published study to verify this. Based on what I have seen, and the clear evidence of bias on their part, it appears unlikely they were so comprehensive as to include leaves or foliage beyond the barked surfaces of the tree.

Time erases as much as it uncovers. I do not take the position that newer is always better. I have found quite commonly among scientific articles that research done in previous generations was done more ethically and thoroughly than much of the modern research. True, we know more today, and sometimes the older research does not have the full benefit of the knowledge we now have. But the modern research is far more often flawed by outside influences, e.g. funding concerns, political concerns, etc.
 
There is a complete break down today
If belief in experts
It’s been replaced with faith in Facebook twitter and social media posts by people you know.

Doesn’t matter if your internet friend doesn’t know anything about science or engineering
It’s about having connection to the person that shares the information

People are disconnected from the truth
Don’t believe what they read or see.
They rely on what their friends tell them and believe now
No idea how you can fix that
The mistake we make is that we counter what is obvious (to us) nonsense with facts, rather than try to understand the concerns people may have and address those. Personally I stopped caring a long time ago about the believes of people who assert that the earth is flat, people who believe the earth was created for the benefit of humans some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, people who believe the covid vaccine will kill those who took it (by 2023), people who believe, that global warming is a hoax (or that it will destroy the world), people who oppose the Genetic manipulation. The list goes on and on.

I don't vote, I can't stand populism and all politicians need to pander to the crowds in order to get elected. Unfortunately the majority of the voters do not believe in facts. And I believe all politicians have good and bad points. Trump is criticized for his slow and bodged response to covid, but he did help speed up the rollout of vaccines under "operation warp speed". Biden is criticized for high unemployment and a bad economy, but employment grew every month during his administration and the stock market is at a record high at the end of his term.

I do solar as a hobby because I wanted to see first hand what is and isn't possible with the technology, I like self suficiency (where resonable) and I like to tinker. I now believe that while there certainly are engineering challenges ahead, solar, wind, hydro electric and nuclear, combined with battery storage are, or soon will be, economically viable regardless if people believe in global warming. And I do have to thank Will for his video's and others on this forum who gave me courage to get started. Even the preppers have a lot of knowldge and the best part is that they are willing to share this, regardless of all the nonsense they might spout on some of the other topics.

I do find irrational believes interesting, like you I don't know how to fix it, or even if it is possible to fix.
 
The last sentence was from one of the people that was skeptical about the first results.
The sentence was:

Coyne said he was "delighted to agree with this conclusion [of Majerus's experiment], which answers my previous criticisms about the Biston story."

I do not know what the "criticisms" may have been. Every person seems to have a unique view and will disagree with some points, so I didn't read any particular skepticism into it. But what stood out to me was the expression "delighted to agree with this conclusion." It says nothing of being happy to have dispelled prior misunderstandings. It says nothing about being delighted to disagree with some priorly held belief. The wording implies, at least to my mind, that he had already postulated in agreement with the foregoing conclusions, and was happy to find support for it.

But perhaps you can fill me in on what those "criticisms" actually were, as I have not heard them.
 
It says nothing of being happy to have dispelled prior misunderstandings. It says nothing about being delighted to disagree with some priorly held belief. The wording implies, at least to my mind, that he had already postulated in agreement with the foregoing conclusions, and was happy to find support for it.

And this is where you read that wrong. Most scientists are happy when their previous skepticism has been removed because of the evidence presented.

He specifically wrote on the Biston research: "Reviewing the book, Jerry Coyne noted these points, and concluded that "for the time being we must discard Biston as a well-understood example of natural selection in action, although it is clearly a case of evolution. There are many studies more appropriate for use in the classroom."
 
And this is where you read that wrong. Most scientists are happy when their previous skepticism has been removed because of the evidence presented.

He specifically wrote on the Biston research: "Reviewing the book, Jerry Coyne noted these points, and concluded that "for the time being we must discard Biston as a well-understood example of natural selection in action, although it is clearly a case of evolution. There are many studies more appropriate for use in the classroom."
Thank you for that.

It sounds like he had some reason to believe the prior studies were not defensible. He was a committed evolutionist, so he was unsatisfied with leaving it at that, and went to conduct his own study that would provide a more credible defense in favor of the conclusion he preferred. The "for the time being" remark is telling. It is easy to see from his comments what his desired outcome would be--and thus it is no surprise that he is afterward "delighted" to establish it.
 
The mistake we make is that we counter what is obvious (to us) nonsense with facts,
I often am reminded of the Novel 1984

A the ministry of life Winston is being tortured and question about what perceives as the truth
He says he knows what it true because he remembers….

His torturer tells him
It’s un important what is true and his memory is defective

There is no law of gravity
If I believe I float and you believe I float
Then it’s true….
We live in a post truth world where you have the option to believe is what ever truth or alternative facts you like
As long as you are surrounded by friends and confident s that share your belief that’s all that matters
 
There is a complete break down today
If belief in experts
It’s been replaced with faith in Facebook twitter and social media posts by people you know.

Doesn’t matter if your internet friend doesn’t know anything about science or engineering
It’s about having connection to the person that shares the information

People are disconnected from the truth
Don’t believe what they read or see.
They rely on what their friends tell them and believe now
No idea how you can fix that
No, that hot girl really wants to hook up with me. Amazing, that with a few billion men across the world she chose me!

"Experts" say, . . . The problem is human nature. People want to be right, admired, powerful, ... The overly ambitious among us, have a tendency to propagandize. We are all biased, but generally over time the correct conclusions bubble up to the top. For some reason, it seems like more and more people are being indoctrinated to accept the conclusions made by the powers that be, the "experts", who may or may not even have an agenda beyond a desire to be heard and admired. This is not the foundation that made our country strong, and thru the course of history, this tends to have catastrophic consequences.

We've managed as a society/world to do some magnificent things, but we really need to be skeptical of "experts". It's too easy to plant a seed of truth to make straw man arguments that will not hold up under further scrutiny. We are constantly bombarded with stories of research where the data was faked, or hand-picked, or adjusted to fit the desired conclusion. Then because it fit a narrative, that same flawed research becomes a "consensus" that we should trust because the "experts" said so. If you question the results and conclusions you are a science denier, ridiculed and censored.

Things are starting to get a little out of hand on this front, but the best way to combat it is more FREE SPEECH not censoring speech. There used to be a joke that bubbled up from the old newsgroup days, that if you wanted to find out if something was true or not, post it on a newsgroup. If you are wrong, a million people will let you know with details and examples of why and how you are wrong. This kind of discourse is critical if we are ever to move forward and get the correct conclusions.
 
Just because someone is an expert doesn't mean they are flawless. Sometimes, the experts can be wrong. Remember, the "experts" once proclaimed the world was flat, and that the earth was the center of the universe.

Questioning the experts should not be automatically rejected. Sometimes those experts get big heads and start talking out their rears, and they need to be challenged. Sometimes the challenge comes from another expert. Sometimes, it comes from a lowly peon who then absolutely embarrasses the expert.
 
Circling back to the topic of the storms, ... The other problem is "Another bad winter storm is coming, batten down the hatches and stay off the roads you fools" is not sensationalistic. "An unprecedented winter storm will be moving across the nation starting tuesday, the devistation is likely to be widespread, causing catastrophic losses of life and property" sounds so much more exciting!
 
It sounds like he had some reason to believe the prior studies were not defensible. He was a committed evolutionist, so he was unsatisfied with leaving it at that, and went to conduct his own study that would provide a more credible defense in favor of the conclusion he preferred. The "for the time being" remark is telling. It is easy to see from his comments what his desired outcome would be--and thus it is no surprise that he is afterward "delighted" to establish it.

He didn't do his own study - he wrote this in response to a study he was not involved with.

That's what makes a good scientist: he could just as well accepted the previous study since it supported his personal views. He didn't. Only when the proper evidence to support the conclusion was presented, he accepted it.

He was a committed evolutionist

Most are, because the evidence is overwhelming.
 
If you are wrong, a million people will let you know with details and examples of why and how you are wrong.
I would adjust that a little, though. "If you are thought to be wrong...." The counterintuitive truth is that the majority is often wrong (not always, but often enough). One might prefer to think there is always safety in numbers. But it simply isn't so.

Those "million people" who offer corrections might themselves be hoodwinked by a mistaken narrative that even the so-called experts truly believe. Sincerity of belief does not equate to genuineness of truth. There are a good many things which experts sincerely believe that are outright false.

In a medical school classroom decades ago in California, students once heard these shocking words from the professor. "Half of what we teach you here in the university is true. Half of it is false. The problem is, we do not know which is which." One especially bright student in that class, realizing the professor was attempting to be humorous, understood the statement to be actually quite true, and made it his special focus in the years that followed to discern between the true and the false. And the statement has proven quite true, as many misconceptions were then held which have now been dispelled.

Among other things, there were at that time double digits of so-called "vestigial organs." Scientists today have learned of the importance of every one of those, and we no longer have any "vestigial" organs.

It was not until the late 1990's, if I recall correctly, that scientists finally cracked the mystery surrounding the bumblebee's flight--up to that point considered impossible. Imagine being a scientist and seeing a bumblebee fly--good physical evidence, if there ever was any--and yet mathematically be able to show that its flight should be impossible (it was said to be able to generate only 1/3 to 1/2 of the required lift given its wing surface). Yet, until enough was learned about the function and use of the insect's wings, the popular myth was that a bumblebee should not be able to fly.
 
Most are, because the evidence is overwhelming.
I agree that the evidence is "overwhelming." However, you might be surprised to hear that the very evidence by which you establish your naturalistic evolutionary views is evidence for me of God's creation. We look at the same evidences. We reach widely different conclusions.

The word "evidence" is, perhaps, a little misleading here. Evidence is not proof. It is not a conclusion. It is just evidence.

The conclusions only come after making a faith choice. Like it or not, everyone must do so. Naturalistic evolution requires faith to believe it, just as creation does.

For example, you might look at the progression of sedimentary layers in the geological strata and note that simpler organisms prevail in the lower strata, and that the upper strata exhibit fossils of more complex life forms. To you, this shows increasing evolutionary complexity over time, as the upper layers were laid down after the lower layers (obviously). But to me, this shows that horses and elephants could run faster and reach higher points quicker than the crabs and crustaceans or mollusks, which were buried first as the waters of the Flood rose higher and still higher. We look at the same rock layers, and the same fossils--yet we come to dramatically different conclusions. The difference in our viewpoints amounts to one thing: faith.

Christ taught that most would enter the path toward destruction, and that few would follow the path to life. So it is no surprise to a Christian that the majority in the world today have an opposing view. What still surprises me, though, is how so many could really believe the theory of naturalistic evolution: it seems hardly tenable to me, with such a thin thread of credibility as to defy all logic and reason.
 
Scientists today have learned of the importance of every one of those, and we no longer have any "vestigial" organs.

Not so, even in humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

It was not until the late 1990's, if I recall correctly, that scientists finally cracked the mystery surrounding the bumblebee's flight--up to that point considered impossible.

That's not correct. The exact aerodynamic models weren't created until then that fully explained how it works because the needed computational power wasn't available before that, but it was never considered to be 'impossible'. It was just a joke going around: "the reason why a bumblebee can fly is because it doesn't understand aerodynamics", an anecdote that was written in 1930 and taken at face value.
 
Evidence is not proof. It is not a conclusion. It is just evidence.

Yes, that's what science uses. Just like the word 'theory' has a very specific meaning in science.

The conclusions only come after making a faith choice.

No, that's not correct. You draw conclusions based on what you know. You change them if needed over time as more evidence pops up and theories evolve. Science is a process. If it knew everything, it would stop. But it knows that it doesn't know everything and thus the search for truth continues.
 
What still surprises me, though, is how so many could really believe the theory of naturalistic evolution: it seems hardly tenable to me, with such a thin thread of credibility as to defy all logic and reason.

That's the thing. It's not thin at all. It's one of the most founded theories we have developed, with evidence at every step of the way. If it were easy to disprove because it would be untenable with a thin thread of credibility, you would be famous in no time: just publish the paper refuting it and you might even win a Nobel.

The issue is that it is "hardly tenable to me, with such a thin thread of credibility as to defy all logic and reason" - Key words 'to me' - in your mind because of preconceptions and not understanding why the evidence is so irrefutable.
 
...

The conclusions only come after making a faith choice. Like it or not, everyone must do so. Naturalistic evolution requires faith to believe it, just as creation does.

...
Incorrect. I do not believe in things. I use the preponderance of evidence to accept something up until further evidence cause me to stop accepting it. Evolution is a messy thing and is only acceptable as more likely than a human story about supernatural beings. There is real evidence for evolution that is not reliant on faith. There is no physical evidence that deities exist outside the imagination.
 
That page is pure nonsense! They include so many things that weren't even considered in the biology textbooks when I was in school. Here's a sample:

Goose bumps​

Goose bumps are an example of a vestigial human reaction to stress.
The formation of goose bumps in humans under stress is a vestigial reflex; a possible function in the distant evolutionary ancestors of humanity was to raise the body's hair, making the ancestor appear larger and scaring off predators. Raising the hair is also used to trap an extra layer of air, keeping an animal warm. Due to the diminished amount of hair in humans, the reflex formation of goose bumps when cold is also vestigial.

First, this does not address a "vestigial organ," which was what I was addressing. Secondly, the authors of that opinion piece appear to overlook their own evidence in favor of goosebumps in concluding that it is a vestigial reaction. They are hyper-focused on "hair," but I can assure you that olympic swimmers would entertain other considerations with respect to goosebumps. That they affect airflow, or waterflow, over the skin could hardly be denied. How, then, would this be "vestigial"?

If nothing else, few people would not notice that they have goosebumps--so it should tell them something important.

Plainly, those who wish to find vestigial organs will promote something that fits their agenda, as that page well establishes.
That's the thing. It's not thin at all. It's one of the most founded theories we have developed, with evidence at every step of the way. If it were easy to disprove because it would be untenable with a thin thread of credibility, you would be famous in no time: just publish the paper refuting it and you might even win a Nobel.

The issue is that it is "hardly tenable to me, with such a thin thread of credibility as to defy all logic and reason" - Key words 'to me' - in your mind because of preconceptions and not understanding why the evidence is so irrefutable.
I used the "to me" out of respect toward those of a different view, such as yourself. Rather than speaking in a matter-of-fact tone of voice (as I would feel quite comfortable doing in support of my views), I am deliberately attempting to be polite in this discussion. Do not take my politeness as an indication of weakness nor of insecurity in my views. It is not.

I know how this story will end. I know that I will be proven correct when Christ returns to receive his children and take them to a better place. At that time, many will weep. Many among the lost will have been honestly deceived, having sincerely believed the lies they had been taught. But sincerity of belief will save no one.

But here is the most important point: No one will be lost for having believed a lie--they will be lost for having failed to believe the truth.

We must each keep an open mind. I may be deceived on some important points, too. I am no more special than you. We have a common enemy, and he lies expertly to deceive us, to cause us to join him in his misery (misery loves company). And one of his best tactics is to persuade us to stubbornly close our minds to the truth.

Incorrect. I do not believe in things. I use the preponderance of evidence to accept something up until further evidence cause me to stop accepting it. Evolution is a messy thing and is only acceptable as more likely than a human story about supernatural beings. There is real evidence for evolution that is not reliant on faith. There is no physical evidence that deities exist outside the imagination.
You will learn in the study of psychology that what you presently assume requires no faith is, in actual fact, based on faith. Everyone's reality is built around a faith choice. Why? Because it is only by faith that we can break the vicious cycle, the logical loop, between metaphysics (beliefs about what is real) and epistemology (beliefs about what is true). It is the faith choice that gives us a starting point, because what one believes to be true affects what one perceives to be real and vice versa. Following a faith choice, which then brings one's reality into clarity, one's axiology is formed, i.e. his or her value system.

Regarding the "physical evidence," again, this depends partly on one's faith choice. However, there are other experiences one may have which gives actual physical evidence. If you are driving your car and suddenly the steering wheel turns, but not by you, because of which the vehicle averts an impending accident that you had not seen until afterward, and no one else was there to turn that wheel--what would you believe about this "physical evidence"? I was in that car. I can assure you that it was no figment of imagination. Nor is this the only miraculous thing I have witnessed. My brother, on a hot windless day in southern California, when we were just children, raced to top of the plateau near Palm Springs. I raced beside him. We reached the top well ahead of our parents who slowly climbed the trail behind. At the top, we got too close to the edge, looking down over the cliff. I saw my brother lean, from an erect standing position, over the edge--and he admits that he had leaned beyond the point of recovery. But to our amazement, something unseen pushed him back up and righted him, saving his life. His guardian angel was at work that day, for sure. Perhaps you will find some "explanation" for these things. Most probably you will discredit them on the basis of being an unproven allegation of an internet stranger. And that would be your right to do so. But what if you were to see something like this firsthand--in your own experience? God is waiting to reveal Himself to you, if you just invite Him to do so.
 

diy solar

diy solar
Back
Top