The question is whether these phenomenon are beyond the current methods of science.
...science is always trying to expand scientific knowledge (=growing) by exploring the unknown and seeking explanations.
The growth I mentioned isn't the growth of knowledge, but of methodology.
Even though backed into a corner, you seem unwilling to to make the tiny conceptual leap that is right at the edge of your argument. We're no longer dealing with the analogy of the chess board, but the definitions of the terms we are using and their logical implications. There is nowhere left to turn but to admit that science must eventually change its methodology if it is ever to explain phenomenon it is currently, by definition, incapable of explaining.
Good night...
The question is whether these phenomenon are beyond the current methods of science.
This cannot be known.
The growth I mentioned isn't the growth of knowledge, but of methodology.
Once again you are trying to change the definition of science.
Even though backed into a corner,
LOL
We're no longer dealing with the analogy of the chess board, but the definitions of the terms we are using and their logical implications.
Sorry, but when someone starts trying to change the definition of words to support their position, words that have hard solid meanings and that are time tested, I bow out.