Of course humans are preternatural, if we were truly equal with nature than we would not have developed the ability to reason.

All of the great apes can reason. So can other mammals like Cetaceans.

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.

Wait, what?

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

Well, it doesn't make us "above nature" any more than birds being able to see the Earth's magnetic field makes them above nature.

I could go on, but realistically, your case is a rather vacuous one.

"Of course humans are preternatural, if we were truly equal to nature we would not have developed the ability to reason."

How do you propose 'we' developed the ability? We didn't do it through reason, or logic, so how could an unreasoning being become reasoning without the guidance of natural laws and mechanics?

"... it is in this ability that we have gained our independence from the norm."

Your argument from here down suggests to the reader, that the ability to reason links us to the "norm"... You say that reason leads to responsibility for nature, so if anything we aren't gaining independence, but becoming closer to nature.

Overall though, this statement makes no sense because nothing can gain independence from nature.

"...and taken our place with the other preternatural things, massive physical phenomena, like meteorites that cause massive dieoffs."

"Phenomena" in general is just a vague word we use to describe something that isn't understood. So much for your reason. Meteors are natural occurrences, like stars and dirt. They aren't above nature because they could kill life... that's like saying a rock, if thrown at someone, was supernatural because it kills things.

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

Humans reason a certain way, dolphins, chimps, octopi, and even cats are intelligent but they reason differently. This is one reason the I.Q. test isn't taken so seriously, because it's a test to measure human intelligence and reason. It cannot be used to measure the ability of chimps, and a chimps IQ test couldn't be used on humans, we would fail it as bad as a chimp would fail ours.

"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."

Destruction is simple, stop putting it on a pedestal. It doesn't signify anything, especially because destruction, or the ability to destroy anything comes directly from the laws that govern the universe. It's a mechanical process, not a man made process, and it doesn't take much to do.

"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."

We cannot fix problems. We can identify what our problems are, or what will be problematic in the future, but that doesn't mean that they are really problems in nature. The globe is warming, but we're causing it, it's bad for our environment and our way of life... but we're not destroying the world. The world is working as well as ever, but we're changing it in ways that threaten our own existence. Every animal knows how to identify problems, and every animal seeks it's own survival before anything.

"4. if one can reason, then one can be responsible."

You need to prove this, you can't just say it and expect people to accept it as truth. As far as I can tell, reason and responsibility aren't directly linked. If anything, morals (which don't need to come about via reason) are at root of responsibility.

"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."

This is called self-preservation. It's not above nature to look out for yourself, or even for the well being of others. Animals are known to do this instinctively, not only look our for themselves, but other animals too. Dogs protecting cats, things like that. This isn't a human, unnatural or reasonable thing.

"6. if we were truly responsible we would fix our mistakes, since nothing else can."

We are responsible, but we aren't fixing much... how do you explain this? Even though nothing else will fix it for us and we know we're fucking up, we continue.

"7. in nature their are many exceptions 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."

I'm not entirely sure of what you mean here. There are other animals that take responsibility for their actions. Maybe not our of ethical duty, but instinctively, some can act responsibly.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of these arguments need to be reassessed. Not one of your points have a solid, well understood, base. I don't know if anyone else here could really understand what you're trying to get at, and I'm not sure you do either. You need to think about it longer. It's an interesting question but you're not thinking enough outside of (or even inside of) the box. Don't come up with the conclusion that you want to have, let the conclusion reveal itself to you, and keep it until you find a flaw in it on your own.

Also, get familiar with the term "nature" and "natural". It doesn't seem like you understand the meaning all too well and that may be the biggest missing part to your puzzle. Nature doesn't only include the biological world, of plants and animals, even you said meteors are a part of nature, but it's even bigger than meteors and smaller than quarks/gluons etc.

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.