Were you there?

Claim

(In response to any claim about the history of life) Were you there?

This argument is equally effective against creationists, as no person alive today can verify the accuracy of The Bible (or other holy works).
No creationist really believes such an argument outside the context of denying certain fields of science. They are not demanding that the prisons be cleared of those convicted of crimes with no known witnesses. A crime committed is still a crime, even if there were no witnesses there to observe its occurrence.
Past events often leave evidence that can be found in the present, thus allowing people to know things happened without actually witnessing them.
Techniques can be developed to extrapolate from findings. This is the basis of a great deal of science, history, industry, economics, and human interaction.
This argument makes all human acts of logical deduction, intuition, extrapolation, and analysis meaningless, as we would need to wait for absolute certainty before acting.
What if the evolutionist answers "Yes, I was!"? How can the creationist know it's not true, if by their own assertion one must witness things first hand to know about the past.
So, do creationists who ask this question also insist that a crime can not be committed if there is no eyewitness present?
add more responses

Slothful Induction (demanding direct observation as the only valid proof)
Denying the Antecedent (if you were there, you would know what happened. You weren't there, so you can't know)