Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Talk:How do you know? Were you there?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Use professional language[edit]

So that teachers will feel comfortable having their students read these pages, we should avoid the four-letter-word-obscenities -- such as the ones at the end of the "Dear Emma B" and "Fourth-grade science test" sections. DrMatt (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Could use some more sources[edit]

I really think that we should try to get this article up the quality scale. Looking around much of the propaganda that creationists use these days (especially on youtube), this seems to be one of their most favorite arguements. Recklessly Noise Punk What's this button do? Uh oh.... 09:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

From AIG -
When teaching children, we tell them they should politely ask the question “Were you there?” when talking to someone who believes in millions of years and molecules-to-man evolution. If someone replies by asking the same question, as you have done, we say, “No we weren’t there, but we know Someone who was there, Someone who cannot lie, who knows everything, and has always existed. And this One has revealed to us what happened in the past in His history book called the Bible. Are you interested in reading God’s history book to find out what the Word of One who was there tells us about the true history of the world?”
But I'm not quite sure how to add it into the article. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I have it added as a source in there somewhere, but I'm sure we could find a place to quote it in the article itself. Recklessly Noise Punk What's this button do? Uh oh.... 10:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I've added it, but it could probably do with a better treatment. Scarlet A.pngsshole 11:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"How do you know?" isn't part of the escape hatch[edit]

"How do you know?" is seen, from the content of the article, a substitute of "Were you there?" rather a part of the escape hatch. Should this warrant rename? ThiehMonitoring virgin birth experiment 16:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

To what? I don't follow how it isn't an example of an escape hatch argument, or what beingpart of an escape hatch would mean. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The escape hatch is "Were you there?" in order to discredit the person presenting the facts about ancient things. in the section "Dear Emma B", "How do you know?" seems to be a substitute that will lead to more informative conversations, and as such are not the escape hatch. ThiehInsomnia? Masturbate till you pass out 18:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
This is true, but the question as asked is pretty much in the form given in the title - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

AIG response[edit]

There's actually an even better response than given in this section. You merely respond "Ahh. So you have an actual witness who was there. Ok, produce this witness. Summon up your God. I'll believe whatever he tells me, personally. — Unsigned, by: ‎ / talk / contribs

Biblesayso. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 10:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


Put your fingers in your ears and yell out "BLABLABLA I CANT HEAR YOU" every time somebody tries to explain anything or say anything logical and reasonable to you. That is kind of what Right wing bible thumping Christians do. Template:Nsig SophieWilderModerator 22:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

2 Peter[edit]

Some context for the quote from 2 Peter (KJV): "2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"

This seems to putting the words "as they were from the beginning" into to mouths of the "scoffers". It is not an endorsement by the author of 2 Peter. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Everyone has their own opinions and thank you for expressing yours. Believers pick and choose how they want to interoperate things all the time. That cherry picked section is one used often to justify creationism and global warming denialism (thank you senator Inhofe). If you don't like us doing it then maybe you should stop people from using that rather than their critics for pointing out how gobsmakkingly stupid it is. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Reversing the question[edit]

Ask 'daft questions' to which 'were you there' can be added until you get bored: 'Where were your parents married?', 'You say your car was serviced at X garage...', 'You say this ready-meal was safely prepared' etc (variant on Aristophanes' The Frogs' oil bottle quote-insert). Anna Livia (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)