[js1138]

Since the foundational question is whether we are looking at a natural vs supernatural creation, to limit acceptable explanations to only natural ones means that natural explanations are correct 'by definition' only.

It makes no difference whether the creation event was natural or supernatural. Humans are limited in their investigations to the assumption that the universe is not capricious. The foundation for this approach was set in place by a Christian, Isaac Newton.

1. We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
2. Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
3. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
4. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

[GourmetDan]

I think you have misrepresented Isaac Newton if you imply that those statements mean that he (and man) must reject creation. Are you even rational anymore?

It's an illogical position and will not return a correct answer if the question is supernatural creation vs naturalism.

That's not that difficult to understand. That you continue to insist on naturalism and a guaranteed wrong answer shows how strong your beliefs are. To the point of irrationality.