i see that i did not make myself clear in my first post, i thought that in the first post you are merely supposed to list your points, as vaguely as possible, and then let the negators fall into the trap( at least thats how my debate teacher taught us)

and when i said phenomena, i gave an example as to which kind i was talking about, but besides that.

never mind my initial post, if i could delete it and just use my second one i would.

just use my second one. debate that.

i wasn't disputing your definition at the time.

supernatural is in no way equivalent to preternatural, as you rightly said, preternatural, is like...a ghost, almost. its their in it, yet it isn't their, out of it. it is one of those things where the sum of the parts is lesser than the sum of the parts

i didn't mean to post thois many, i just didn't see them when i posted them.....i will figure out how to delete them when i get back home and do so!

are you aware of the great distinctions between apples and oranges?

so should we call apples and oranges, and all fruit of the like, treebearing citrus, and treebearing sweet fruit, oranges? should vans be called buses. should their only be the word speek to show that somebody voiced something, should it only be run, instead of barreled, or dashed?

language may be found in many places, but that is not the debate. all because humans are, or are not preternatural doesn't mean every one of their traits are! it just means that they have one or two traits that sets them above all else.

which in tyhis debate is reasoning, and by extension, responsibility

are you aware of the great distinctions between apples and oranges?

so should we call apples and oranges, and all fruit of the like, treebearing citrus, and treebearing sweet fruit, oranges? should vans be called buses. should their only be the word speek to show that somebody voiced something, should it only be run, instead of barreled, or dashed?

language may be found in many places, but that is not the debate. all because humans are, or are not preternatural doesn't mean every one of their traits are! it just means that they have one or two traits that sets them above all else.

which in tyhis debate is reasoning, and by extension, responsibility

are you aware of the great distinctions between apples and oranges?

so should we call apples and oranges, and all fruit of the like, treebearing citrus, and treebearing sweet fruit, oranges? should vans be called buses. should their only be the word speek to show that somebody voiced something, should it only be run, instead of barreled, or dashed?

language may be found in many places, but that is not the debate. all because humans are, or are not preternatural doesn't mean every one of their traits are! it just means that they have one or two traits that sets them above all else.

which in tyhis debate is reasoning, and by extension, responsibility

are you aware of the great distinctions between apples and oranges?

so should we call apples and oranges, and all fruit of the like, treebearing citrus, and treebearing sweet fruit, oranges? should vans be called buses. should their only be the word speek to show that somebody voiced something, should it only be run, instead of barreled, or dashed?

language may be found in many places, but that is not the debate. all because humans are, or are not preternatural doesn't mean every one of their traits are! it just means that they have one or two traits that sets them above all else.

which in tyhis debate is reasoning, and by extension, responsibility

i think you are opporating under the wrong definition of the word. supernatual implies that it is one withbut stronger, like a superchanrged engine, but preternatural and natural is comprable to apples and oranges.

all the great apes may be capable of reasoning, but they are not capable of reasoning to the same extent of humans. no animals other than humans can form sentences, or can descide who should live versus who should die in a court.

with our level of reasoning comes responsibility, and with responsibility we have been able to form great cities and proliferate like on other, growing exponentialy in size(not uncommon in nature) and knowledge(i can say with 99.9999999% certainty that humans are onbly organisms known to man to be able to do this).

we have become great, in our ability to be destrouctive (notuncommon in nature) and our ability to fix our mistakes( only humans).

as such we are no more natural than the giant meteorite that killed off the dinosaurs with 1000foot tall walls of fire, or the volcanoes that roasted, and suffocated almost all life, but maybe even more preternatural still in our ability to reverse what we have done.

and in my definition of the term and the placement i have given, the highest power would have to be the earths ability to rebound even after such awesome forces as meteorites, oceanic acidification, and ourselves have ravaged it.

(hoipe this is clearer)

Of course humans are preternatural, if we were truly equal with nature than we would not have developed the ability to reason. it is in this ability that we have gained our independance from the norm, and taken our place with the other preternatural things, massive physical phenomena, like meteorites that cause massive dieoffs.

1. if the rest of nature can not reson to the same extent as humans, than that makes us above nature.

2. the fact that we have been able to become such a destrutive force in such a small amount of time, puts us far above nature.

3. the fact that we are able to fix the problems we create makes us preternatural, for we are capable of resoning, and in extension, responsibility.

4. if one can reason, than one can be responsible.

5. the fact that we are preternatural gives us the right, no, the responsibility to right the wrongs we have been creating, global warming, ocean acidification, etc.

6. if we were truly responsible we would fix our mistakes, since nuthing else can.

7. in nature their are many excepions to rules, but the one rule that creates a preternatural being isn't speed, mind power, or destructive proliferation in itself, but the ability to be responsible for what you have done.

humans can create, and destroy like no other biotic force on the planet, and we are thousands of times more destructive than anyo ther biotic force. humans are preternatural.

if someone could point out the flaws in these arguments, and which ones don't matter, that would be swell! their is so little information about this on the web, excepting twilight references and the like.

i now stand open to cross examination.