Acartia_Bogart
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014
|
| Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 30 2015,11:48) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 29 2015,16:24) | I maintain that forensics is not an ID supporting system mainly because this is how an ID police force would work.
Officer: Yes ma'am, due to various calculations, we've determined that your husband was murdered.
Wife: Do you have any suspects.
Officer: Sorry ma'am, but we don't look for the murder, just determine that he was murdered.
Wife: Can I see your calculations, maybe I could give them to a private detective.
Officer: Sorry ma'am, but you wouldn't understand them.
Wife: Surely you can give them to me. Maybe someone else could understand them.
Officer: I already gave them to you. |
Kevin, just because you are a lowlife loser who couldn't conduct an investigation if your life depended on it, doesn't mean everyone else is too.
You don't look for a murderer until you determine a murder has been committed. And most times that is all the forensics says. The detectives then go about using the forensics to find the murderer.
But then again you know forensics only from CSI shows... |
True, you don't look for a murderer until you know a murder has been committed. Does this mean that you are finally admitting that design in nature is far from conclusive?
Biologists started looking for the mechanism behind evolution shortly after Darwin proposed his theory. Since then they have discovered genetics, mutation, meiosis and mitosis, genetic drift, neutral theory, antibiotic resistance, horizontal gene transfer, transcription, transposition, etc., et ., etc.
And ID has discovered ...??? FIASCO? good job.
Maybe you should stick to wavelength and frequency. You make more sense with these (none).
|
