I am something of a cryo-skeptic because I think at best all you will get is a copy of the person who was frozen. I am much more interested in SENS-style rejuvenation efforts. But I am curious about the source of your (and Sam Adams') skepticism. Are you of the opinion that it would be impossible to set all those frozen molecules in motion again, or impossible to make a living copy of the frozen original? Do you doubt that the important information (memory, personality...?) survives the freezing process?

Contemporary science and technology are showing that nature permits atoms to be manipulated with extraordinary precision. Of course, your molecular structure is a lot more complex and dynamic than that of Carbon Monoxide Man. But then we would hardly need to get every atom back to exactly where it was, in order to make something a lot like you. We would just need tissues grown from cells containing your genome, and then arranged in a structure grossly resembling your current body. The brain is presumably the place where certain fine details matter the most. But I really don't see what is to stop us from growing a decerebrated body in your image (having first synthesized a copy of your genome a la Craig Venter), and then carefully filling its skull, layer by layer, with synthetic neural tissue made in imitation of the microstructure of your frozen brain, assuming that we have it available.

That is a procedure for making a copy of you; but I would tend to think that something which reanimates the frozen carcass is also possible, albeit more difficult to describe. These things are very high technology by current standards, but how to do them is not an unfathomable mystery. It's of a level of difficulty more akin to constructing an inhabited space station that will orbit Neptune. A big engineering challenge.

On the other hand I suggest I understand you perfectly and have attempted to respond to the core objection I have with your comment. That is, it is a demand for unobtainable evidence.

The entire purpose of cryonics is to freeze a person pending the availability of future technologies. If that technology was, in fact, available now it would be evidence that cryonics was unnecessary.

You make the claim:

he entire argument in favor of cryonics is based on projections for future discoveries and technologies, which any cryonics proponent will admit. Thus their argument is not really an argument based on evidence -- it is more of an argument based on expectation.

There is no other interpretation that can be made of that than a demand for unobtainable evidence. You explicitly include, "Thus their argument is not really an argument based on evidence - it is more of an argument based on expectation". That is absurd. Projections are a form of (or, if you prefer, contain and depend on) evidence. If you question those projections then you can question the evidence they have. You can not assert that they are not basing their claims on evidence just because it is evidence about the future.

You're Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof.

In case that was clear and it was intentionally or subconsciously disregarded, as I must shamefully and cynically suspect, then you can simply go fuck yourself.

I appreciate it when people can make their aggression explicit, rather than try to foist it off via whatever mechanisms decorum allows. In this case however, I'd like to point out that I am not signed up for cryonics and, while some of the reason for that is economic and akrasiatic factors, cryonics is still not a core element of my identity. I have little vested interest in supporting cryonics but something I do seem to take personally is aggressive, fallacious argument.

If you go reread your earlier post, take some time to think through what you are really trying to say, remove the overgeneralisations and sloppy reasoning and write your position down clearly and with some semblance of respect for your audience then I will almost certainly acknowledge your point.

It's perfectly clear from context that I am referring to the entire cryonics refrigeration and revival process

Ok. So you are talking about the entire process. What then is your objection to the refrigeration aspect? Do you think that the information is irretrievably destroyed? Do you think that the information is not destroyed but that the body is too far damaged to ever be restored in any useful way? Do you think that the preservation process does not do a good enough job at preventing ongoing damage? Do you think that the probability of thawing due to the catastrophic events or economic problems is too high? Or do you have some other objection that I have not listed?