Philosophy Versus Science

[Sheldon]

You don't offer a criteria of what you think such evidence would be, that exists entirely outside of the remit of science or the natural realm I mean.

Here are you claiming that "science" and the "natural realm" are contiguous? That is, in your view anything in the "natural realm" is something science can have evidence for? 

I'm not sure if that's true or not. 

No I was asking a question it's in the part you clipped from that quote, so here it is again.
"You don't offer a criteria of what you think such evidence would be, that exists entirely outside of the remit of science or the natural realm I mean. Could you give me an example, so I can understand what you mean by "evidence" in that context?"

I have emboldened it for you, can I expect an answer?

Belacqua  if it's something that science can't study, you don't consider it to be evidence.

For context that was your original claim, can you give an example of such evidence? 

NB Not a definition of evidence, but an example of such evidence?