The police do not need permission from the coroner to do an investigation. If it is a dead body with multiple stab wounds and a knife sticking out of her chest then the most plausible is a murder, not a heart attack in which somebody comes along and decides to multiple stab a dead corpse. I initially wrote it would be evidence of a murder and you denied that.
I didn't deny anything of the sort. What I actually said is that in such cases, the "at first sight" plausible conclusion is rarely simply accepted with no further questions asked.
Which is why I said that even in such cases, autopsies are STILL done to objectively determine the cause of death, eventhough it might seem obvious at first sight.
This is what forensics does....
Do you know what plausible is?
Yes. Do you understand the difference between "plausible" and "possible"?
You don't need it to do an investigation. Based on the initial facts, they can investigate it as a murder and start to look for suspects.
Well, someone or something surely put those stabs and knife in that body.
Wheter or not it will be a
murder trial will depend on the actual cause of death.
Yes, most likely the cause of death will be the stabbing and most likely it will result in a murder trial.
But, as I said, if the autopsy points out that the person died from natural causes and then was stabbed while already dead... it will no longer be a murder trial, but something else...
Or it might be the equivalent if the stabber thought the person was sleeping for example, then it will still have had the
intention of murder.
The whole point here, is to show you that what
might seem the case
at first sight, is not
necessarily the case after further investigation.
No and assembly line would be an analogy of what happens inside a bacteria. It should be obvious to anybody and take it literally is what fundies do. Can't make the distinction between analogy and literal.
LOL!!! says the guy who started the whole analogy thingy.
And, btw, what happens inside a bacteria, is biochemistry.
If your scenario is determined, then they would still look for the stabber of the corpse.
Yes. But it would not be a murder case. Which was the point.
Again to summarize that point: what
seems the case
at first sight, isn't
necessarily the case.
So, when a living thing
seems designed
at first sight, it doesn't mean that it
actually is.
Again Jumbo jet is an analogy, not literal.
It's a
false analogy.
The problem here is obstruction because you do not want to deal with the reality.
Says the guy who goes with his interpretation of an ancient text which is in direct contradiction with reality....
Both are complicated and built by intelligence
That's just your bare claim. And you are using that bare claim as a premise in your analogy. Which is exactly why it is a false analogy.
Jumbo Jets don't reproduce with variation, don't compete with peers over limited resources and aren't engaged in a struggle for survival.
This means that jumbo jets aren't subject to the process of evolution. Living things are. Because living things DO reproduce with variation, DO compete with peers over limited resources and ARE engaged in a struggle for survival.
Since that is the actual subject of discussion, to compare life with jumbo jets is a
false analogy.
That is an inference to the best explanation.
No, it's just a claim with zero explanatory power. In fact, the actual facts of reality
contradict your claim.
If you are saying naturedidit then you bear the burden.
That burden has been met a long time ago. It seems you missed 200 years of biological science. +300.000 papers have been published on the subject.
You can read in my signature what Francis Collins, a devout christian and biologist, has to say on the subject.
Blind faith and wishful thinking not compelling and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Indeed. So when you make the
wild claims that you make, it seems you have your work cut out for you.
