"Where you there?

"Well, were you there when you say your god created it all?"

This is a common rebuttal to the scientific explantion of the orgins of the universe (specifically the expansion that we can observe) and Evolution (again supported by tons of evidence).

The argument goes something like this. As we can not be billions or millions of years in the past we can not observe anything. The evidence that has been left behind bones etc are not admissible as evidence as we could not be there to see them live in real time.

Usually examples are given such as if we find a deer skeleton we can observe it and can infer that a deer actually existed. Apologist simply ignore this evidence and reply "were you there?"

The idea apologist have is to "debunk" science with this statement and proffer that their god created everything.

I like to turn the tables when this is done. So if science can not assert as fact anything without direct real time observation of an event then it is no more valid to assert that god did it as there can not be any direct real time observation of said event. Were you there when god created the universe? Then how is your explaination any more valid? It is important to leave it there at this time in order to give them time to think without jumping into the actaul evidence. This is about exposing the fallaciousness of the argument not proving science.

This is simply a tool to teach theist about how this argument is fallacious.

Do you have any other ideas on how to handle this arguement?