I get how science works and how it doesn't. Word supernatural is simply something that is natural that is super (ie: a tornado is a supernatural wind.) This is not to be confused with that which is spiritual (ie: miracles, blessings, etc.)
The examples you just used aren't even natural or supernatural, they are artificial, being made by man.
For starters, scientists don't use the word supernatural in this regard. It's just called natural - there's no reason to refer to it as "super".
As for my analogy, whether it's man made or not doesn't really matter - the point would remain equally as valid. But since you're using a different definition for the word supernatural, then I'll concede that my analogy does not address your claim. However, I would like to state once again that your use of the word supernatural is pointless. It tries to categorize one natural phenomena as being inherently different from another one based on vague criteria. The thing is, all natural phenomena are equally natural relative to one another.
Here is something to ponder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7IzvcVa53A
How many died from man made climate change that caused unproven supernatural changes (ie: global warming, green house gases, etc.)?
How many died from provable and localized man made climate change (ie: over-hunting, localized habitat destruction, etc.)?
I ain't denying climate change, I just do not think it is as supernatural as some unproven or disproven theories touted as science claim. Yea, and those outlandish theories only serve to turn people off to caring about this very real issue. We don't need to throw the scientific baby out with the bath water though. Just need to get back to pragmatism.
Keep in mind that the negative effects of global warming and other issues such as deforestation may not be immediately obvious. For example, we've seen a very concerning drop in bee population these past few years. But you still see honey fully stocked on store shelves, so clearly we don't have to be worried, right? This is, unfortunately, how many people think of resources. But if you understand basic economic principle, you can more accurately assess the issue. If you pay attention to the price of honey, you'll notice that prices have shot way up (taking inflation into account). There are numerous reasons why the price might go up, and declining bee populations isn't necessarily the reason. However, a decline in bee populations would result in raising honey prices.
The point I'm trying to make with the bee population is that the negative effects of animal depopulation may not seem obvious. This is because the market compensates for this shortcoming. The rise in prices results in lower demand, as well as more money that can be used to expand efforts to breed larger bee populations (It's easier said than done). If bee populations continue to dwindle, we'll continue to see higher honey prices.
So if I understand you correctly, you're wrong to suggest these issues are being blown out of proportion. We're fortunate as a species to have discovered many different ways to survive. So with some animals extinct, we can simply move onto another animal. But certain resources are vital to our survival.
When was the last time you ate a Gros Michel banana? Chances are, you haven't. The Gros Michel was widely wiped out in the 1950s, leaving us with the Cavendish banana. Not necessarily a man-made problem, but it's an issue I could think of off the top of my head that highlights how vulnerable we are to the extinction of species. Fortunately, through science, we still have the Cavendish.
If you want to learn more about Climate change, watch this series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL36DD12D3AC5274E4
[video=youtube;52KLGqDSAjo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL36DD12D3AC5274E4[/video]
And here's some incentive for you to watch these videos. Part 3 actually busts someone I personally admire, Penn Jillette.
If you want to tell me how "supernatural" climate change has been unproven or disproven, watch Potholer's video series on climate change. You will get a brief explanation of the actual controversies within the scientific community (as of the time he released the videos in 2008 - 2010). More importantly, you will learn about perpetuated myths spewed by the media under the guise of science.
