What if criminal investigations were done the way creationists do science?

[theFijian]

In the "creationist method," as you call it, the "murderer" would leave a note detailing what he did, how he did it, the sequence of events, etc. In addition, he would not be very far away.

And in the Creationist method the note would contradict the evidence at the crime scene.

 

[AV1611VET]

And in the Creationist method the note would contradict the evidence at the crime scene.

So you'd let the guilty party walk?

 

[Catholicon]

What would you be more likely to believe, the EVIDENCE or the note?

 

[AV1611VET]

What would you be more likely to believe, the EVIDENCE or the note?

At the scene of the "crime," prior to anything happening after that, the evidence fit the note.

 

[Catholicon]

Those last five word grammatical senses make do not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those last five word grammatical senses make do not.

???

That's a grammatically-correct sentence --- and I'll ask again: you would let the guilty party walk?

 

[Catholicon]

How would you know they're guilty, because of the evidence or because of a note?

 

[theFijian]

So you'd let the guilty party walk?

No, I'd convict on the evidence and try to work out whether the note was the product of an unsound mind or intended to deliberately deceive. This is the God of Creationism, he is either mad or bad.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the "creationist method," as you call it, the "murderer" would leave a note...

How would you know they're guilty, because of the evidence or because of a note?

It's hard to admit a point, isn't it. Some people just want to debate for the sake of debating. I have a word for them: lonely.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I'd convict on the evidence and try to work out whether the note was the product of an unsound mind or intended to deliberately deceive.

Fijian, I guarantee you, if someone killed someone, then wrote a note that he did it, and you let him walk away based on even very strong evidence to the contrary, you would end up either unemployed or behind a desk.

Any detective knows that the first 24 hours is crucial, after that the credibility of the evidence spikes downward exponentially until it reaches bottom --- called "cold."

 

[Catholicon]

Why would you have any reason to believe him when there IS "very strong evidence to the contrary"?

You do know what "evidence" means, don't you?

And I'll ask again because you didn't actually ANSWER my question: How would you know they're guilty, because of the evidence or because of a note?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would you have any reason to believe him when there IS "very strong evidence to the contrary"?

You do know what "evidence" means, don't you?

And I'll ask again because you didn't actually ANSWER my question: How would you know they're guilty, because of the evidence or because of a note?

Here in America we have a very famous case of a little girl who was murdered years ago. Today, all evidence points away from whom many people think did the crime.

 

[Catholicon]

And?

 

[theFijian]

Fijian, I guarantee you, if someone killed someone, then wrote a note that he did it, and you let him walk away based on even very strong evidence to the contrary, you would end up either unemployed or behind a desk.

Any detective knows that the first 24 hours is crucial, after that the credibility of the evidence spikes downward exponentially until it reaches bottom --- called "cold."

I don't think you read my post quite right. I'd convict the guy alright, but based on the physical evidence. And then I'd want to know what kind of a mind would produce such a note, one which is delusional or deceptive. As I said this is what Creationism makes God out to be, either mad or bad.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think you read my post quite right. I'd convict the guy alright, but based on the physical evidence. But then I'd want to know what kind of a mind would produce such a note, one which is delusional or deceptive.

Did "truthful" come to mind?

But I think I know where you're coming from. Get the killer into psychiatric testing. Make sure you keep our psychiatrists employed.

Do you know the biggest reason why some authorities were so disappointed that Klebold and Harris shot themselves?

 

[AV1611VET]

And?

And we're done, Catholicon. IMO, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing; and frankly, you're not making any sense to me.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't think you read my post quite right. I'd convict the guy alright, but based on the physical evidence. And then I'd want to know what kind of a mind would produce such a note, one which is delusional or deceptive. As I said this is what Creationism makes God out to be, either mad or bad.

Why either or? Why not mad and/or bad?

 

[Catholicon]

Did "truthful" come to mind?

Why would it when the evidence proves otherwise?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't have time to read back through all this but suppose that you have two sets of evidence. One is very complete set of physical evidence including fingerprints, blood evidence etc. The other is the English translation of a note written in Hebrew that the translator claims was magically transmitted to the mind of the original writer by the "real killer". The creationist approach is to ignore the physical evidence convict the "real killer" identified in the note.

 

[theFijian]

Did "truthful" come to mind?

Remember our chat about God's revelations? You seem to be quite happy with them being contradictive, I am not becuase the God of the Bible is not a deceiver. The God of Creationism is however.

But I think I know where you're coming from. Get the killer into psychiatric testing. Make sure you keep our psychiatrists employed.

Lol! Is that the best you can do now? Blame it on a conspiracy? I'm sure you can do better than that.

Do you know the biggest reason why some authorities were so disappointed that Klebold and Harris shot themselves?

Looks like someone wants to take this thread off-topic! I wonder why...