There is sufficient evidence for the existence of super-ordinary actors on Earth.

In a response in his debate, feverish made this declaration "Reliable historical works do not contain descriptions of supernatural events." He is saying that if an ancient event is described as supernatural by the observer then de facto the document is unreliable. This is a mindset that prevents actual debate. Thank you Sir Freeman; I had to look up the word "orthogonal". Its particular reference here remained obscure. I will try to limit my responses to matters of communication. First concerning general matters. Under your conclusion: COUNTERPOINT "…hasn't even defined what supernatural actors he claims exist." POINT A.) I did provide a Nominal Definition for super-ordinary actors and did not provide a Real Definition because the debate concerned the evidence, not the actors. Under your 4. COUNTERPOINT "All we know about are natural explanations." POINT AA.) If this statement was a truth, then this debate would be completely unintelligible to us. In this debate I was making no attempt to establish the "veracity" of a Supernatural Theory, as presently we only have various theses concerning the Super-ordinary Actors available. What I am promoting is that there is certain evidence lacking conventional scientific explanation that would be better explained by one of these theses. Under your 2. COUNTERPOINT "The sheer number of people that make extraordinary claims does not indicate the existence of the supernatural." POINT BB.) I suppose if there was a crowd of people outside your window yelling "Fire" that this does not indicate its existence. Even though proof may be obscure, the indication is available. I make this point because again we are not debating the existence of the supernatural, but rather the existence of the evidence. Now as to the particular points pertinent to our debate. COUNTERPOINT "He claims that the Mayans had advanced technology without explaining…" POINT 1.) I made no claim that the Mayans had advanced technology. I was claiming that they had witnessed such. I was not asking for nor providing a supernatural explanation. I provided the quote which clearly shows what the Mayans thought and the reference web sites were explicit as to the technological interpretation of the image that they call an ancient astronaut. I was making no deduction, merely indicating the Mayans testimony of what they witnessed. I promoted the simplistic explanation that from my viewpoint as a modern educated individual, it isn't necessary to declare that the testimony can not be taken at face value. If one is to discount their claim to what they witnessed then the explanation does become more complex. Therefore, if you are claiming that there is some other explanation that explains their error and uses lower order actors, then by all means please enlighten us with this more simplistic explanation. COUNTERPOINT "This claim is so specious…" POINT 2.) What I provided was that the book of Genesis 1 contains information an ancient person couldn't have dreamed up. I did this by noting that the order of development follows what we know now to be true. Freeman states "…no way congruous…" because "…billions of years" is used scientifically whereas the bible uses the poetic translation ‘day' for a general period of time. He does not offer any alternate explanation how his "denizen" could have known that there was an order to the development. In conclusion, Freeman's refutation amounts to heuristic generalizations of why we cannot think in a certain way. He dismisses the particulars without offering any alternate explanation. Eros for your correction.