[MD] For Peter

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
Arlo then takes the following ten paragraphs NOT to answer the question. 
And both complain about evasions and dishonesty?

[Arlo]
You bet I complain about it, as in the case of which you just wrote. I
absolutely answered SA's question, directly and clearly, and I'd challenge
anyone to show my how I have not. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

But I'll see if I can make it even simpler for you, Platt.

1. YOU derided Krimel's explanation as "oops".

2. YOU'VE trotted out this glib derision many times in the past whenever anyone
suggests that consciousness originated with "physiology" or "social activity". 

3. This was the SAME derision given by Ham, and is exactly the SAME point of
contention he had, namely that the origins of consciousness are neither
biological or social (both of which you deride as "oops").

Following me here?

4. Because I was having the SAME conversation with Ham, and because I am
frankly sick of your smug, but empty, glib remark, I posed the same question
Ham cannot answer to you.

5. In other words, YOU deride other's as "oops", so its fair to ask, "what do
you offer INSTEAD?" If the origins of consciousness are NOT physiological or
social (your "oops" response indicates your view is they are not), then "what
are they?"

This simple enough for you so far?

6. This is the same question as "what changed?" What changed in the historic
timeline that brought consciousness (in man) into being? You deride those
giving answers touching upon physiology and social activity as "oops", so what
do you offer INSTEAD?

7. No, you never mentioned evolution of consciousness, I said that several
times. But since you obviously espouse a theistic revision of the MOQ, and
since this is the obvious next followup to the above question, I also directed
this question to you.

And ever since all you've offered is the most blatant dishonesty and evasions,
dishonesty so deliberate that it should shame you.