It's not possible to observe that the answer is not physical. You cannot observe the absence of something, only your inability to detect it. Or, rather, it's not possible to observe what something is not, because you cannot perform some kind of negative observation. It is impossible to eliminate the natural or the physical.

That's why we're done. We've come to the impasse, the one great misunderstanding which you do not seem to want to get around. So we're done. There's nothing else to say, and anything past this point would just be repeating points already elaborated on.

...

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed"

That is the first law of thermodynamics. 

The first law is actually

More, this is just in keeping with observations up to this point. If something popped up that violated thermodynamics (violated entropy) then it would be out the window, good-bye, so long.

It is not possible to eliminate the natural or the physical, only to change one's suppositions. If you have "eliminated every possible physical cause", then no, actually, you haven't, and you are a bad scientist if you lack the imagination sufficient to say as much.

You cannot eliminate all physical causes, not even hypothetically. It violates logic. You don't see how it violates logic, that's ifne, I don't hold it against you, but it also means that continuing the conversation has become pointless.

Argh! Whats the freaking point of posting that? We've already talked about it.

If that was broken then most of physics would have to be heavily adapted, it would not mean the supernatural. A law is only the repeated observation of a phonomena, a contrary observation (most likely subject to repeatability) falsifies a scientific law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Read that, that is something any scientific theory or law needs to hold to. Any supernatural explanation does not submit to falsifiability.

*Reads thread*

*Slips into a coma*

Are you guys even talking about evolution anymore?

What the Hell is evolution!?

The "negative version" of that is exactly the same thing; of course you can say it.

And why do you keep bringing up things contradictory observations?  My scenario does not consist of those, as I have said countless times now.

If you mean eliminate as in deductively eliminate, then, of course, you're right.  Likewise, you can never deductively prove anything either, so I'm not sure what your point is.  Science is an inductive process.

In my scenario, if you induced non-physicality, then you've induced supernaturality.

You can't do that either.

To demonstrate that science has, at one point, made a "negative" observation.

"A law is only the repeated observation of a phonomena, a contrary observation (most likely subject to repeatability) falsifies a scientific law".

Why do you keep bringing this up? My example does not have a contrary observation.

Here's an example of induction;

"All geese I've ever seen are white.  I assume, then, that all geese are white"

And another;

"All geese I've ever seen are not blue.  I asssume, then, that no goose is blue"

Neither follow, and both are what science do.