Nope, no He didn't.
It's like this, FishFace:
God sends a superflood upon the earth that totally wipes everything out.
One year later this superflood is gone, and 4500 years later even scientists can't find it - (like they can find anything).
Now, who do you think cleaned it up?
Let me ask the same question in an easier way:
Who is the only one who had the power to clean it up?
Some things just go without saying, don't they?
(Or do you really need a Sherlock Holmes to explain this to you?)
Yes, yes, I like this game, is it my turn? OK, I assume it isn't (because when AV plays a game, he usually rigs the deck) but I'll take one anyway. Perhaps AV's loaded dice rolled a double one by accident.
It's like this, AV:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
removed your head three days ago, totally wiping you out.
Two days later,
your head is back, with no sign of it ever being gone (even your friends don't remember it missing, but like they can remember anything...)
Now, who do
you think put your head back on?
Oh wait, here's an easier answer, AV:
YOUR HEAD NEVER LEFT YOUR SHOULDERS!
So from now in, instead of forcing me to play silly games, why not respond logically and without unevidenced, a priori assumptions, hmm? How about, gosh, responding to the example. I'll copy it out for you, so you don't need to hunt for it:
It's another murder investigation. You are trying to convict suspect G, now, on the basis that you have a "note" in your words, detailing what he did. Except you're claiming that suspect G wrote the note, whereas in actual fact, it was a note written by someone who merely claimed to know suspect G. The note simply says, "Suspect G killed Mr X."
You are trying to tell us that this constitutes a confession. But clearly that's nonsense - we're still going to convict suspect D, because there's no evidence whatsoever that G did it, and there's loads pointing to D. You claim, now, that G simply framed D. But you also claim that this isn't perversion of the course of justice, oh no - G left a note saying he dunnit!
Except he didn't, someone else wrote the note. And it wasn't even copied word for word, it was "inspired" by G. And instead of detailing the murder and the cleanup, it just claims murder, so G would still be guilty of perverting the course of justice.
Now, I mentioned that I'd used the example before. There's a funny reason why I'm using it again - it's because you already ignored it three times. I don't hold hope this time, after all, it shows your logic to be hopelessly flawed, and you don't seem to like listening to things like that.
