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

Thank you Sir Freeman for accepting the challenge for I have been quite confused by the inability of the two poles to communicate and agree to what should be plain and common to both, that is the evidence existent. As to the rewording of the resolution, it is accurate as an alternate statement, but I worry as to our agreement of its proposition. ‘Actors' I consider to be a condensation of ‘agents' and ‘forces' thus I readily accept your expansion. I am concerned as to the denotation you wish for ‘supernatural'. I chose ‘super-ordinary' or ‘extra-ordinary' because something that seemed "miraculous" to primitive people could be common place to people who had the technology readily available which manipulated the natural world in seemingly "miraculous" ways. In other words, the definition of ‘supernatural' is a moving target based on not only what is known at the time about natural forces, but also carries the connotations that ‘presently we know all there is to know about natural forces' and that anything that violates what we know as natural must be ‘spiritual'. Thus I chose ‘super-ordinary' to denote that the actor had capability that exceeded the capabilities of knowledge for the era. Therefore, by limiting the connotations I am hoping that the argument can be reduced down from any particular actor, to just whether or not the evidence indicates capabilities that were greater than the era would allow. POINT 1.) If you are to require that we deal with examples of violations of natural forces, then I must concede the argument as such is indeed impossible. POSTULATE 1.) Anything and everything that occurs or manifests itself in the physical system may only do so by obeying the laws of the universe. POINT 2.) And before we mention any such thing as a "deity" we should first agree to whether or not there is any ‘spiritual realm' existent. In conclusion, I would want to keep the term "super-ordinary" and drop both "extra-ordinary" and "supernatural". I hold that super-ordinary contains supernatural. In my definition of evidence I specifically provided four categories as each is significantly different and presents unique problems. I would suppose that we should come to specific agreement about each. COUNTERPOINT 1.) In looking through the body of your text, I see you asking me only for scientific evidence 2.) and beginning your argument by admitting to "gaps in our knowledge" while insisting that they "can be explained in naturalistic terms." DEFINITION 2.) If the actor is super-ordinary then by definition that actor is employing causes that we do not have knowledge of and thus duplication by experiment is impossible. POINT 3.) So at the most that we can hope for is to note certain effects and argue about plausible causes. DEFINITION 3.) As I see it, according to our present knowledge base, we have the potential for only three super-ordinary agents, agent to mean an entity with intellect. These agents if existent, would be from the spiritual realm, from some other planet, or from our future. POINT 4.) That the super-ordinary actors are beyond our ability to compel them to act. To reiterate the problem of scientific evidence by repeatable experiment. As stated in part (a.) of the definition, evidence by repeatable experimentation is outside of our capability relative to our discussion. Now I would like to present examples of evidence in the other three sub-categories of Definition 1. www.mesoweb.com/features/fabric/media/28.jpg www.earthmatrix.com/series26/pakel_01.html Evidence that would qualify under part D1.b.) is a bias relief from a Mayan tomb that indicates advanced technology. The discovery made by Prof. Marle Green Roberston in the Temple of Inscription. The image is artistic and meant to decorate. It was done in an era before scientific drawings, but the super-ordinary interpretation should be allowed as there is a substantiating cultural document known as the Popol Vuh, sacred to the Mayans with the interesting statement "Men came from the stars, knowing everything, and they examined the four corners of the sky and the Earth" POSTULATE 2.) Occam's Razor demands simplicity in our explanations by not postulating unnecessary entities. POINT 5.) Thus we must accept the image and statement at face value. Similar evidence – www.crystalins.com/ancientaircraft.html For testimony as evidence – http://mattweiner.net... Evidence that would qualify under part D1.c.) contains not only the individuals who claim spiritual experiences but also the many videos of paranormal events now on the web. However, I would rather move on to the more traditional battleground of historical documents. Evidence that would qualify under part D1.d.) is Genesis 1 with its account of the Earth's development. The order of events described there follow the order that we are taught today. POINT 6.) I hold that a super-ordinary agent providing the information to ancient, primitive people as the simplest explanation. CONCLUSION The Points 1-4 respond to the demand for experimental evidence to which I expect no response. Now I have provide two particular examples of evidence with the simplest explanation being super-ordinary. Points 5 and 6 demand a response. Eros for your correction.