"were you there?"

[rustbeltvoice]

I was watching PBS documentary on the Ark Museum in Kentucky. Ken Ham [Aussie Baptist]was talking to children, and was coaching and chanting that line. It is an aggressive and obnoxious rejoinder to an argument, that gives no information. They think it has destroyed your statement. I recognised the attitude. Trumpsters, and others in the extreme conservative [and fascist] cult give the same or similar retort to facts, propositions, and arguments they disapprove of.

My question is where did this type of "argument" begin? The first time, i think, i encountered this was at the beginning of the tea-baggers in 2009, and other Faux cable zombies. That sort of argument was novel to me, it was absent in the schooling i had. It is absent in my religion. It was absent in my intellectual life. Is this from Protestant fundamentalism? or right wing politics? is it a Nazi remnant?

[msongs]

1. were you there for what? nt

[A HERETIC I AM]

2. Ham and his mirror image Kent Hovind have been using that bullshit for years

It is a favorite of theirs because they want children to misunderstand the scientific method.

But it is seriously flawed, of course.

It is tantamount to you saying “there was a forest fire in that area” and me saying “how do you know? Were you there?”

The obvious answer is no, of course not, but the evidence is clear and irrefutable.

It is the young earth creationist method of attempting to discredit evidence.

It’s easily shown to be a fallacy.

[yonder]

4. +1. "...forest fire in that area" and me saying "how do you know? Were you there?"

nice counter.

[Lord Ludd]

3. No, Ken. Were you? nt

[uriel1972]

5. 'zactly!