15 comments on “Armoured Skeptic vs Answers in Genesis: Were you there?

  • If that really is Richard’s personal library on the clip at :26, then I do hereby plead guilty to the sin of coveting. Guilty as charged.

    No remorse will be forthcoming.


    Report abuse

  • @OP – Armoured Skeptic vs Answers in Genesis: Were you there?

    The farcical “were you there?” comment is of course a statement of profound ignorance and contradiction of all scientific indirect inferred induction/deductions from evidence and of rational thinking!

    (Did ancient Rome have emperors? – Durrr – I wasn’t there, so all the coins, statues, buildings and inscriptions, must be fakes!)

    This makes YEC claims of doing science even more laughable!

    Report abuse

  • Huh ! The “Were you there? ” question reminds me of that psychological experiment, where the audience were asked to count the number of passes in a basketball game. Apparently very few of the spectators noticed a character dressed in a gorilla suit, come onto the court and generally monkey around whilst they were counting the passes.

    So much for eye witnesses !

    Report abuse

  • Which also reminds me of another famous experiment speaking to the unreliability of eyewitnesses. An experiment was conducted where a group of people watched a short film of a car hitting a stop sign while moving at ~ 5 MPH. They were then asked “how fast do you think the car was travelling when it hit the stop sign?” Most answered near the actual speed limit or below. Another group of people watched the same film but this time the question was posed somewhat differently – “how fast do you think the car was travelling when it smashed into the stop sign?” All of the people estimated the speed higher than the first group. This simple experiment shows us how malleable our minds can be when led to conclusions with the appropriate rhetoric. And how unreliable.

    Report abuse

  • @OP – responds to AIG’s video about how science works.

    Answers in Genesis is the classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and how religious fundamentalism empowers the god deluded, into believing their “god-did-it” view, gives them profound understanding of the workings of the universe.

    They are probably the least scientifically qualified people on the planet to explain the workings of sciences, but are determined to preach their muddled and deluded confusion to everyone else anyway!

    Report abuse

  • Sweet merciful crap, the fundie videos are ignorant.

    I’m sorry, I try to be reasonable most of the time but that was simply tripe. not worthy of analysis or scrutiny. That anyone would take it seriously is dangerous.

    The only answers you can find in the bible are:

    Did a bunch of people write stuff that was compiled in a book?
    Do a bunch of people take it WAY too seriously?
    Has it had a large influence on culture?

    What you won’t find is absolute accurate historical data, evidence of a deity or evidence of any form of design. Those are inferred by believers, who have no facts to sustain them. This is the entire reason faith is even necessary. This is at the heart of what religious faith is. If everything in the bible had been scientifically proven as true, faith would have no reason to exist. It would be fact.

    But it isn’t, and the sooner people stop treating like fact the better off we’ll be.

    Report abuse

  • Mr DArcy
    Nov 21, 2015 at 10:49 am

    Was Ken Ham there when Allah split the moon in two ? No I didn’t thinks so either.

    But Ken was there watching the documentary video where Fred Flintstone, Wilma, and Barney Rubble, were running around with dinosaurs! 🙂

    Report abuse

  • Several times I too have been asked by a fundamentalist, “How do YOU know? YOU weren’t there”. It is always with an angry, belligerent voice. Disgusting that their chosen religion makes them a-holes.

    Report abuse

  • 12
    epuursimuove says:

    My reply to this is always the same when someone makes this claim to me.

    Ok, so after making this claim you go home. Your front door is hanging off its hinges. You go inside. All of your possessions are strewn across the floor. On closer inspection you notice many valuable items are missing. So you call the police. “I think I have been burgled” you say.

    “Oh?” reply the police. “And what do you expect us to do about it?”

    “Well, ideally, identify and capture the perpetrators” you respond.

    “And how could we possibly do that? We weren’t there when the alleged burglary took place. Neither were you. Therefore there is no possible way of knowing what happened, or who did what. Maybe a mini tornado blew your door down, lifted a random (but all highly valuable) selection of items into the air and scattered them far and wide. We just simply will never know. There is no way of getting to the truth without direct eye witness accounts. Sorry.”

    “But what about examining the evidence? There might be fingerprints. I noticed some muddy footprints on the carpet. There must be similar situations you can draw parallels with. What if you find the missing goods? Surely the probability is that the person in possession of them was involved in some way? There is surely plenty of evidence you can use that doesn’t rely on direct observation that will lead you to the truth?”

    “No, sorry, directly witnessing an event is the only evidence we are prepared to act on.”

    Would you accept that response in the situation??

    Report abuse

  • 13
    Cairsley says:

    This always reminds me of that hymn Were you there when they crucified my Lord? Do these extraordinarily doltish Christians apply the same criterion to the questions in that hymn? If not, why not? If they maintain that God wrote the scriptures, we may ask whether they were there when God did so. Were they there when God created the world? Etc., etc. The daftness of these people has already been commented on above, and what daftness it is! — the kind of daftness that prevents it from dawning on its faith-befuddled owners that the same criterion can be applied to their own assertions, as it must be if they insist on applying it to other people’s assertions, and with the same result. In any case, eyewitness testimony has always been recognized as being not entirely reliable, and recent research has shown much more clearly just how unreliable it can be. These Christians would do themselves a favor by discarding this crazy line of attack, at least to preserve what respect may still be accorded them as sane members of society, but I suppose they are not the sort of Christians who take advice from unbelievers.

    Report abuse

  • These Christians would do themselves a favor by discarding this crazy
    line of attack, at least to preserve what respect may still be
    accorded them as sane members of society, but I suppose they are not
    the sort of Christians who take advice from unbelievers.

    The problem they have is that, crazy though this line of attack may be, the rest of their arguments are as bad or worse. Incidentally every time I heard that hymn as a child I wondered whether I needed an alibi. (And for the record I was in my pram near Lowestoft when JFK was shot).

    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.