[Dimensio]

If science gives only natural explanations for items it cannot explain, what than is it claiming?

It isn't really "claiming" anything. It's simply offering the best naturalistic explanation for observed phenomena based on deduction and consistent testing.

I'm not sure what you mean about items "it cannot explain". If science cannot explain something, then there isn't an explanation. A "natural explanation" for "items it cannot explain" is an oxymoron.

[Heartlander]

A "natural explanation" for "items it cannot explain" is an oxymoron.

Really?

Click through the links here for a laugh…

[Dominic Harr]

It's simply offering the best naturalistic explanation for observed phenomena based on deduction and consistent testing.

Am I mistaken, or is it incorrect to say that science seeks 'natural explanations'?

I think science is all based on the concept of 'cause and effect'. Science is looking for causes of effects. It could even be a 'supernatural' cause, assuming you had evidence of such. That would still be 'science'.

For example, if 'God' were to show up in the sky over New York, and explain that the bible is specifically true, then that would be 'scientific' evidence of God's 'supernatural' existence.

I'm beginning to think the entire thing with these folks is certain words scare them, so they'll argue with those words no matter what, even if they believe the words are in fact true.

'Evolution'. 'Natural Explanation'.