If someone says science can't explain everything what's the best way to repond?

[Mister Agenda]

Science can't explain everything, but it explains more things than anything else.

[brewer]

Science can't explain everything YET.

Nor will it ever.  In the process of pushing the frontier of what can be explained, science inevitably uncover more things that needs explaining but which it can not yet explain.

Yet only lasts until my last breath. Doubt I give a fuck after.

[Little lunch]

Science can't explain everything.
Yeah, I know you are but what am I?

[Aoi Magi]

Science can't explain everything.
Yeah, I know you are but what am I?

you are a figment of my imagination i guess.

[mlmooney89]

Science -can- explain everything; we as humans just haven't learned everything science has to offer yet. The science is there, the logic is there, the way the world works is there. Just because we can't comprehend it yet doesn't mean it's not there. Tell them "You think 2 plus 2 didn't equal 4 simply because humans hadn't invented math yet? Did oxygen not exist before we knew what it was?"

[ScienceAf]

With a Christian that may be good, but a Muhammadan would start taking about the Arab Golden Ages and how they supposedly invented the scientific method (even though it goes back to ancient Greece and the Arabs merely improved upon what the ancient Greeks have them). It's crazy to think Christianity has become more open to new ideas and the Muhamnadans are less open. It's like they've switched places.

Before the wrath of Muhammadan came the Arab's did invent the scientific method, atleast the modern one.

Then Islam came and fucked shit up.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It all depends on why the statement “science cannot explain everything” was made in the first place.

The results of natural science have always been tentative and incomplete because it is a work in progress. If a subject falls within the domain of natural science then in is justifiable to point that out. For example, how did life begin? That question falls within the domain of natural science so it is justifiable to reply by saying that biologists don’t yet know exactly how it happened but that it is reasonable to assume that as knowledge progresses we will come closer to the answer.

That said, the methods of natural science have an appropriate domain. The value of pi is not empirically determined by measuring various circular objects. The ontological status of mathematical objects is not a question for natural science. Likewise, the scientific method cannot make inquiry into the nature of being as such or the nature of causality. Natural science uses logic but doesn't explain why reason is effective. Of necessity it takes those for granted. And it cannot speak to intentionality, meaning, or purpose. In cases such as these, the idea that science cannot explain everything is simply another way of saying that someone is relying on the wrong means to inquire about something.

[Cyberman]

That said, the methods of natural science have an appropriate domain. The value of pi is not empirically determined by measuring various circular objects.

Archimedes managed it using something similar:

[Minimalist]

Talking to assholes who think fairy tales are an explanation for anything is probably a waste of your time, Rep. 



And none of them will get it.

[Simon Moon]

The fact that science can't explain everything (and may never be able to explain everything) is meaningless when it comes to the claims of theists.

Their claims have their own burden of proof, regardless of what science can or can't explain. Thier claims gain no more credibility because science can't explain everything,  

Take the evolution debate, for example. Even if evolution were to be proven incorrect tomorrow, that would not offer a shred of evidence that a god is responsible.

Yes, it is nothing more than god of the gaps.

Neil Degrasse Tyson:

"Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem."