Posted: May 06, 2017 4:12 am
mingthething wrote:Tzelemel wrote:Gila Guerilla wrote:Evolutionist: "Such and such an evolutionary line split off from such and such else evolutionary line, X hundreds of thousands of years ago".
Creationist: "That's wrong - were you there ??? (Sucker)."
Evolutionist: "How can you say it didn't happen - were you there ??? (Back at you)."
That's a terrible counterargument, because they'll just point to the Bible, then you have to waste time debating the Bible.
My counterargument would be, "So, are you saying that we should let all the murderers free? After all, none of the detectives or prosecutors were there to witness the crime."
Then they'd bring up examples of wrongful conviction occurring to justify their argument that nobody knows for sure because 'you weren't there'. Then the argument from Rashomon etc. Then comes the argument of 'The facts are the same. Just that we interpret the facts differently'. I don't know if I've got a snappy, vivid argument that demolishes this in one or two sentences.
That was not meant to be a counter argument, or an argument, either pro- or con- evolution, (except against the type of argument being proffered in the first place). If the argument ' were you there ? ' is used as a counter to evolution, then the reply is: ' No, were you there?' I was making an analogy, as the thread title suggested. If the original argument was crap, then no wonder my reply is crap too. That's the whole point.The answer to each question is NO in both cases.Then a whole new line of argument has to ensue, (if at all).
Ken Ham uses the ' were you there ? ' argument with little kids too young to understand what B.S. it is. He tells them that, to shut down claims of evolution, just ask 'Were you there?'
What I am saying, is if you had to be there to know what happened, and because no one now living was there, the original argument is crap.
Bringing in the Bible has nothing to do with 'were you there?'. And the counter about murderers is perfectly logical, in the line of the original 'were you there?' as a counter to evolution. Of course we don't have to have been at the committing of a crime to figure out what happened, nor do we have to be present to figure out how evolution has unfolded. Furthermore, we don't have to have been there to see how geological formations were gradually formed. But that is not so controversial, yet it contradicts a young earth belief.
I'm saying to Ham and his ilk, if you can use a crappy argument, so can anyone else. It's better if we don't do it; and by the way this was not addressed to Ham or any creationists, but it could be. And discussing the Bible with people like Ham is useless, because they are apparently incapable of any self-analysis or criticism, (self or otherwise).
How about :-
Evolutionist: "Such and such an evolutionary line split off from such and such else evolutionary line, X hundreds of thousands of years ago".
Creationist: "That's wrong - were you there ??? (Sucker)."
Evolutionist: "Don't ask such stupid f****ing questions."