[MD] For Peter

[Heather Perella]

> [SA previously]
> Good work Arlo.  Ham made assertions.  They were HIS.  Now,
> as you 
> say, if he only could be able to answer some questions
> about HIS 
> assertions this "would have ended back then".
 
> [Arlo]
> Ham and Platt both want to be theists without being known
> as theists. 
> Well, maybe Ham is a little less concerned about being
> recognized as 
> such, since he did say "consciousness is a gift from
> on high". And 
> when I asked him how it came to be that successive
> generations of 
> primates ended up with a "more evolved
> consciousness", why did "on 
> high" bestow an inferior consciousness on early
> primates, Ham snapped 
> "ask him! [meaning "God"]".


SA:  Ham sounds like a true philosopher (sarcastic).


Arlo:
> Platt's theistic revision of the MOQ is far worse,
> since in 
> pretending he is not a theist he is trying to turn the MOQ
> into a 
> theist account "through the backdoor". Even when
> Ham tells Platt that 
> his theistic views have no place in the MOQ (Ham is smart
> enough to 
> see this), Platt denies it. Why Platt refuses to be honest
> about his 
> "Qualigod" and just embrace it outright, I
> don't know. You know, if I 
> asked my same two questions ("what changed?" and
> "how does 
> consciousness evolve?") to my local priest, he would
> be adamant and 
> vocal about his theistic views. Platt prefers mocking
> others ("oops") 
> but then hiding his theistic account ("Abracadabra!
> Poof!") behind a 
> veil of evasion and dishonesty.

SA:  This has gone on so long, refresh my memory, Platt is saying he never asked or made statements about "what changed?" and "how does consciousness evolve?"  
      He also said he never mentioned "the origin" answer, but that I know he did, for he was going on about intention.

Arlo:
> When Ham accuses me of just being too dumb to understand
> his 
> brilliant thesis, I just laugh. Its deceptive rhetoric, but
> I just 
> don't care. Platt, though, shames us all when he, as
> someone who 
> claims to support the MOQ, engages in blatant and willful
> dishonesty. 
> How can someone who claims to be so interested in
> "values" so 
> shameless engage in blatant dishonesty here? I wish to
> "God" he'd 
> reflect on that, but that appears to be wishful thinking.

SA:  Yeah, Platt still hasn't been able to answer those questions, but he's now claiming you dragged him into this and he never had anything to say about evolution and change and intention, etc...


SA