[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> scenario eventuates, then rationally that adds impetus to consider   
   >> supernatural explanations, even with the challenges mentioned. You may   
   >> still declare your own unwillingness to consider the supernatural, even   
   >> with the the most compelling "1000 years" scenario imaginable, and may   
   >> justify that by claiming that such explanations are not knowable. I   
   >> would respond that, at some point, a refusal to at least explore would   
   >> betray an a priori commitment to materialism in the face of scientific   
   >> evidence. And you may disagree, and there we would reach a stalemate.   
   >>   
   >> Okay, we know where we stand. The best we can do then is stick to   
   >> discussing science and make our own choices as to where that may lead.   
   >>   
   >> As for the "1000 years" of OOL, thankfully there's no need to wait, it's   
   >> already here, the examples below being just a small sample...   
   >   
   >   
   > On the one hand, you admit that supernatural explanations and   
   > scientific explanations aren't equivalent, which makes your expressed   
   > line of reasoning a false equivalence, a disingenuous debating tactic.   
   >   
   > On the other hand, you assert 1000 years of OOL are upon us, when your   
   > examples below actually show that OOL research has only just begun   
   > within my lifetime.   
   >   
   > On the gripping hand, you claim to have won the debate, without even   
   > trying to answer the questions you raised, a characteristic typical of   
   > IDeology.  Bad form, MarkE.   
      
   He won't care, but thanks for the Mote reference.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)