I must confess I´m pretty tired of Heissonear and others permanently refusing to support their claims, and instead keep attacking the strawman "Naturalism".
And here´s why:
The question "What are the natural laws? What is possible in nature and what isn´t?" is and should be a foundational question to Supernaturalists more than anybody else. After all, without having established what is possible in a naturalist world is a requirement for discerning supernatural events and miracles from natural and ordinary events. Thus, the naturalist position (regardless whether it´s true or not) serves a purpose that´s foundational to everyone who wants to operate with the term "supernatural".
Thanks to people who look at the universe under strictly naturalist criteria (aka scientists) we have an constantly improving understanding of natural laws and the limits of nature. Thanks to those scientists our understanding of these laws and limits is permanently tested, modified, changed. This also serves a foundational purpose to the Supernaturalist (see above).
Of course, such researches works best when done at the limits/borders of that which is our current understanding of the laws of nature.
That´s why the (hypothetically) naturalist approach is so interested in events that (seemingly or factually) violate our current understanding of these laws (e.g. "miracles"): It might change our understanding of them, it might lead to new findings (and has so often enough), etc.
This also is in the best interest of the Supernaturalist - after all, his position and understanding depends squarely on what is natural.
But strangely enough, we learn that the resident Supernaturalists aren´t cooperative when it comes to investigating that which is a crucial requirement for their own view and position (and, on top, one might even expect them to have done this homework themselves - before they show up here and declare a certain event a "miracle). They are doing the very opposite: They refuse to provide the data, the evidence, the sources, etc., and instead resort to attacking the limited knowledge of Naturalism.
So let´s remember: this thread started with the description of the "miracle" that all 15 members of a group were at least 5 minutes late at a meeting. Our current understanding of nature isn´t challenged by this fact. This is, even under a strictly naturalist view, entirely possible and not even that unlikely to happen. In its own best interests, the intellectually honest Supernaturalist would admit that right away.
Now, spontaneously regrowing limbs are an entirely different matter. If such occurances have been observed they may (or may not) be a threat to the Naturalist pov. As shown above, it would be in the best interest of the Supernaturalist to provide all information that´s available and have it put to scrutinity. Yet, what we get is not only the refusal to do so - we also get massive irrelevant attacks on the naturalist worldview, we get appeals to Heissonear´s and other´s superiour and exclusive understanding, we get obsfucation and obscurantism.
And that puts a huge questionmark behind their intellectual honesty.