Daily Archives: December 22, 2014

Crysis: 3 Gameplay EPISODE: 1 "Post - Human
Mission: Post-Human Next Episode: http://youtu.be/EJeQVU1xpD8.

By: ethanlapis

Read more from the original source:
Crysis: 3 Gameplay EPISODE: 1 "Post - Human - Video

Crysis 3 Final Mission No Deaths on Post Human Warrior

By: Quamatech

Go here to read the rest:
Crysis 3 Final Mission No Deaths on Post Human Warrior - Video

An orangutan named Sandra has become the first non-human animal recognized as a person in a court of law.

The Association of Officials and Lawyers for Animal Rights, an animal advocacy group, had asked Argentine courts recognize the 28-year-old great apes right to freedom from unjust imprisonment.

On Friday, an appeals court declared that Sandra, who is owned by the Buenos Aires Zoo, is a non-human person who has been wrongfully deprived of her freedom.

Sandra, who was born in German zoo and sent to Argentina two decades ago, at an age when wild orangutans are still living at their mothers side, wont be given complete freedom.

Having lived her entire life in captivity, Sandra likely could not survive in the wild. Instead, if the zoo does not challenge the decision within 10 working days, Sandra will be sent to a sanctuary in Brazil.

This opens the way not only for other Great Apes, but also for other sentient beings which are unfairly and arbitrarily deprived of their liberty in zoos, circuses, water parks and scientific laboratories, said lawyer Paul Buompadre, one of the activists who filed the suit, to the La Nacion newspaper.

The decision may have ramifications for other great apes. In the United States, a group called the Nonhuman Rights Project is currently seeking similar rights for four privately-owned chimpanzees in New York state.

According to the Nonhuman Rights Project, chimpanzees deserve rightsnot full human rights, but at least a few basic onesbecause they are so similar to humans.

Theyve so far been unsuccessful. Their latest court defeat came in early December, when a New York appeals court argued that, regardless of their intelligence or feelings, chimpanzees cant fulfill the social obligations expected of anyone with rights.

The Argentine court, however, made no mention of social duties. Sandra is simply enough like a human person to be considered a person, they ruled.

Originally posted here:
An Orangutan Has (Some) Human Rights, Argentine Court Rules

Lets continue with the discussion I started in yesterdays post.

We are considering whether it is reasonable to persist in believing in the reality of Adam and Eve given the findings of modern science. The problem is that the Bible seems clear that at the time of their creation, Adam and Eve were the only human beings on the planet. But genetic analyses contradict this, pointing instead to the conclusion that the human population has never dipped below two thousand, at an absolute minimum.

There are two broad strategies for avoiding this conflict: Deny the genetic evidence or deny that Adam and Eve were the only two humans at the time of their creation. Dennis Bonnette takes the first approach in this article for Crisis magazine, and that is what we discussed yesterday. He made a number of claims about the genetic evidence that I suspect are dubious, but which I lack the expertise to refute. I did, however, offer the more general objection that in the light of evolution, it becomes pointless to talk about the precise moment when a particular species came into existence (just as it is pointless to talk about the precise moment when a person changes from being a child to being an adult.) A world with precisely two representatives of species Homo sapiens, one male and one female, is not one that makes sense within the evolutionary picture of the world.

Bonnette, however, also offers a rebuke to those who prefer the second route:

Philosopher Kenneth W. Kemp and others have suggested that interbreeding between true humans and subhuman primates in the same biological population might account for presently observed genetic diversity (Kemp 2011). Such interbreeding is not to be confused with the marriages between true human siblings and cousins which would have occurred in the first generations following Adam and Eve, which unions were a necessary part of Gods plan for the initial propagation of mankind (Gen. 1:28).

The difficulty with any interbreeding solution (save, perhaps, in rare instances) is that it would place at the human races very beginning a severe impediment to its healthy growth and development. Natural law requires that marriage and procreation take place solely between a man and a woman, so that children are given proper role models for adult life. So too, even if the union between a true human and a subhuman primate were not merely transitory, but lasting, the defective parenting and role model of a parent who is not a true human being would introduce serious disorder in the proper functioning of the family and education of children. Hence, widespread interbreeding is not an acceptable solution to the problem of genetic diversity.

Obviously I demur from some of this. Basing your argument on natural law is effectively equivalent to just making it up, and marriage as a social institution simply has no essential connection to child-raising. That aside, as a criticism of Kemps argument this works rather well.

If you are unfamiliar with it, Kemps idea is to imagine some ancient population of hominids. In form and even behavior they might appear to be human, but in reality they are not, since they lack souls. God then chose two of these hominids to receive the gift of ensoulment, thereby making it possible for them to achieve true rationality and enter into a relationship with God. They were the first true humans. So, Adam and Eve were the first humans, but they were not the first hominids. God kept track of their offspring, we go on to suppose, bequeathing souls to the products of their interbreeding with the other hominids.

Now, back in 2011 we spent some time discussing this proposal. Edward Feser defended it. I then criticized it. Feser then replied. I then further responded in two posts: Part One and Part Two. Feser wrote a subsequent post explaining his view of original sin.

Feser has now revived this issue, in a discussion of Bonnettes article. He responds to Bonnette thusly:

Read more here:
Adam and Eve, Continued [EvolutionBlog]