Favorite blatantly false anti-evolution argument?

Question

What is your favorite false or ridiculous argument against evolution or in favor of creation (I'm looking for mostly a religious standpoint)?

Some great ones:
"Most scientists reject evolution."
"Darwin denounced his own theory."
"If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
And the out of context Darwin quote about the eye.

Answer 1

Lets not forget "its just a theory" or "they're just bones!"

Answer 2

Those who reject evolution are closed-minded. An incredibly intelligent and powerful entity (most people call him God) created all the laws of science, and this being used these laws (quantum mechanics etc.) as tools to create the universe. One of his creations, genetics, in turn laid the path for evolution.

On the other side of the equation, those who believe that all the laws of science, from Astrophysics to Quantum Mechanics, just happened to exist by coincidence are also closed-minded. In fact, it borders on just plain stupid.

These are the same kind of people who will believe that if a tornado blew millions of times through a scrap yard, a fully functional 747 jumbo jet would eventually be formed.

Answer 3

Oh come on! NOTHING beats:

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]"

Answer 4

There are soo many...

"It's just a theory"
"Why are there still monkeys?"
"Where you there?"

But I love it most of all I love it when they say things like:

"Evolution is nothing but a Religion"
"There is NO evidence for Evolution, people only believe it because they want to believe it"
and yesterday "Darwins only education was in the Bible" (!!)

You see straight to the core of their transposing reality-denying brains.

Answer 5

The one that is most scientifically damaging is "evolution happens by chance". Fortunately, to counter this with a bit of common sense can collapse many of the edifices they build around themselves to protect themselves from having to think seriously about evolution. I've seen lips tremble when the chance barrier has come down.

But no transitional forms is a common one. I think that one about the eye has to be most annoying though, as it's so obviously wilful. Any fool could complete the quotation. Except that none of the fools bother to.

Answer 6

The "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Two things about this question, first of all, if it's a genuine question requiring a genuine response because the asker does not know, then I don't mind that....but when it's asked in a mocking tone, then it's a little annoying

Answer 7

you read that answer too then?

Isn't is frustrating? No-wonder people can't escape their bubbles of delusion when they believe such blatant lies taught by their 'teachers'

As you know:

1) Most scientists accept evolution.
2) Darwin never denounced his theory, he voiced that it didn't explain the origin of life.
3) We didn't evolve from monkeys, monkeys and humans have the same ancestor.
4) So a scientist can't be amazed at the power of a natural process like evolution?

Meat Machine® XXL: Are you looking for a missing link between monkeys and humans, because you won't find one. The common ancestor HAS been found, however.

Meat Machine® XXL READ THIS BELOW (from wikipedia):

***************************************************************

It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.

Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution.

***************************************************************

Answer 8

"this is almost continually assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cellular signify the primitive animals from which all others derived. they're frequently meant to have preceded all different animal kinds of their visual attraction. there is not any longer the slightest foundation for this assumption."—Austin Clark, the recent Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

Answer 9

There are many like the bombardier beetle etc. but the one that I find most absurd is the one where footprints exist alongside dinosaur prints in a dried up river bed which allegedly provides proof that man and dinosaurs lived together. In fact it was caused by a river changing course and washing away layers of sediment but they don't let facts like that worry them.

Answer 10

The arguments are nonsense of course, the thing is the people making these arguments do not realize they are nonsense.

The most obnoxious one is "Was your grandfather a monkey?"

Answer 11

I really get a kick out of ANY question that starts with "So if we came from monkeys...." followed by something stupid. Your version is good, but there are about five others.

That isn't even how it is laid out. How did these people get through eighth grade science class??????