No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact.
No witness was present when the victim was murdered so the suspect should be called a killer not a murderer.
This is basicly what they said.
Are witnesses really necessary to count evolution as a legitimate theory?
Are witnesses necessary to convict someone of murder?
In terms of a court trial the evidence we curently have is
The gun found in the suspects belongings
Bullets found in the suspects belongings
Fingerprints of the suspect on the gun
Fingerprints of the suspect in the victims house
DNA of the suspect on the victim
The bullet recovered from the victims body matching the suspects gun
A pattern of behaviour of the suspect seen killing other people numerous of times
No Alibi
Videotape of the suspect being in the vicinity of the murder douring the time of the murder
motive
And statements of police officers of finding the suspect looking over the victims corpse with a gun in his hand.
The defence argues that the suspect dint kill the victim but a magic invisible undetectable man did.
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
™ Version 4.2
(1)
