USA 4-1 China

fuckyeahhopeameliasolo:

Game Over.

Dear Capcom,

Can we please have Asura as a DLC character for UMVC3 or SFIV:AE?

Please?

The rejection of God, philosophical naturalism and the origin of the Evolutionary theory

hecallsthembyname:

Scientists reject creationism as a whole because it starts with a pre-supposed account of the origin of the world and therefore the ‘evidence doesn’t lead you’ to a conclusion rather evidence is interpreted in the light of the bible; this they say, constitutes pseudoscience.  Science is meant to be starting from the point of no knowledge and seeing where you go.

Unfortunately the biological sciences are steeped in what we call ‘philosophical naturalism’. This is a belief that the natural world is all that there is and therefore God is excluded from the picture by default, this is not a new idea, it dates back to the ancient Greeks. I would contest that the theory of evolution did not start with a scientific search from the point of no knowledge but a search for life’s origins from the unscientific assumption that there is no God.  The biological sciences do not try to answer the question of life’s origins from a position of no knowledge which is agnostic as to God’s reality; but from a presumed position of knowledge that God does not exist.

Charles Darwin, the co-founder of evolutionary theory, was once a supposed Christian.  Many people mistakenly believe that his voyage on the Beagle and subsequent scientific work which cumulated in the publishing of his book The Origin of Species in 1859 lead him to reject God in favour of evolution. This was not the case. Charles Darwin struggled with the problem of evil, his daughter died when she was 10 years old of an unknown illness in 1851 and this was his primary cause for the rejection of Christianity as one biography of Darwin writes:

‘Annie’s cruel death destroyed Charles’s tatters of beliefs in a moral, just universe. Later he would say that this period chimed the final death-knell for his Christianity,’ (1)

He also could not accept that there would be a final judgement for all mankind:

‘I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.’ (2)

Charles Darwin made a judgement call about sin and eternity himself, and thus rejected God because of what he perceived the nature of God to be. Notice something very important here, Darwin did not reject God for any scientific reason, he rejected God for purely philosophical reasons, but now he had a problem: he had no explanation for life.

Darwin, when making his observations about life on the Galapagos, was therefore not interpreting them in a truly scientific manner, which is from a position of no knowledge with an agnostic attitude towards God, but from a position of philosophical naturalism; this is the belief that there is no God and therefore no designer. This was not a scientific conclusion but a philosophical presumption.  Darwin was thus approaching the problem of life from a position of an assumed, unscientific truth; the very same thing that Christians are accused of. He had to find an alternative reason for the appearance of design in nature because he had already rejected design as a valid cause. This is further exemplified by Richard Dawkins’s statement:

 “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (3)

I think this demonstrates the philosophical underpinnings of naturalism over its trumpeted scientific basis. This is the problem with biology at the moment; it is inherently unscientific. The very mention of design is like shooting the sacred cow of ‘science’ yet the opposite predominate view of ‘there is no designer’ is an equally unscientific assumption.

Biological sciences have essentially been asking the wrong question for too long. Charles Darwin began with the idea that life is not designed and since then we have been asking the question how has life evolved. In doing so we have blinded ourselves from the fundamental question in biology: Is life designed? We have shut down an entire line of scientific enquiry based on one man’s philosophical position. To approach life from a truly scientific standpoint the philosophical underpinnings of biology must be removed and the fundamental question of design re-addressed. 

(1) Desmond, A., and Moore, J., Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 387, 1991

(2) The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Collins, London, ‘Religious Belief’, pp. 85–96, 1958

(3) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

OK I’M DONE

freshjuju:

I’m not going to keep complaining about the new Toonami. I’m going to tune in because I want my old shows back. But lets be real here…If they would show the old shows we grew up watching I’m pretty sure everyone’s televisions everywhere would have exploded from nostalgia. 

Imaginary line up consists of: 

12:00 am- Sailor Moon 

12:30 am- DBZ 

1:00 am Yu Yu Hakusho  

1:30 am Tenchi 

2:00 am Gundam 

2:30 am Kenshin 

3:00 am Outlaw Star 

3:30 am Trigun 

4:00 am Big O

4:30 am Samurai Champloo 

5:00-6:00 am Cowboy Bebop

[Save the best 2 for last] 

(via toonamiplus)