What, in your opinion, is the most annoying straw man argument used against Evolution by Creationists?

Answer 1

I think it's the "Evolution can't explain how life began" eventhough it was never meant to.

Herman m...All you havta do is google transitional fossils...

Answer 2

I've sure heard a lot of fallacious arguments, let alone fallacious strawman arguments. But if I had to pick the most annoying one, I'd have to go with "Evolution is just a theory".

Am I the only person who learned the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory" in middle school science class?

Who else does this? Music students take classes on music theory, but somehow I can't picture one musician turning to the other and saying "Well no, I can't play a G-minor chord, because that's just a theory."

Answer 3

those creatures whose DNA strand length exchange are sterile (no longer able to duplicate). So there's no way for one species to become yet another whilst the 2nd species has a distinctive DNA strand length. very pretty much 50 years worth of learn shows that anybody believing that evolution as taught will artwork is accepting something technology has shown won't artwork. So in case you have self belief technology, evolution a minimum of as taught must be rejected.

Answer 4

I'm not sure about whether this applies to the "straw man" argument, but my "favorite" is "if man came from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?" Its absurd - we didn't come from monkeys because we aren't monkeys as we are biologically classified by Linnaeus as... APES. There is a website on "how to debate a creation scientist" for more of their "brilliant" arguments. I think the most telling thing about these people is that they refuse to accept overwhelming evidence (DNA analysis is the "smoking gun") because it doesn't agree with what THEY think, so because they refuse to attempt to comprehend it accurately, to them it can not be real. This is WILLFUL ignorance and to me is a "sin". Sad.

Answer 5

It's "just a theory", "it's random chance" "Why are there still monkeys?" and every other "argument" they have... it's all incredibly, obnoxiously ignorant as well as fallacious.

I can't really pick on the most annoying one, but I may have to go for the "random chance" since that's one of the most common mistakes people make in their erroneous definition of evolution.

Answer 6

my favorite argument is how the cell that supposidly evolved into everything was not killed by radiation because of the sun. In order for this not to happen the earth must have had oxygen to create an atmosphe which would have oxidized the cell and killed it. Its a vicious circle. yet somehow people believe this cell lived even though it is impossible. It is mathmatically impossible for evolution to happen and yet people still act like it is a fact.

Every supposed proof of evolution has been either a monkey, deformed human, or "scientists" purposely mixing bones to prove a bogus theory.

Creation is true.

Answer 7

"There are no transitional forms in nature"

(actually everything is a transitional form)

"The fossil record is incomplete

(of course it is, only in a global cataclysm would anything end up fossilized and they don't happen so often)

"Evolution was responsible for the actions of Hitler and Stalin"

(off the subject but they ALWAYS drag that one out, so I'll include it anyway)

Answer 8

Kirk Cameron's banana theory.. along with the crocoduck.. the fact is that there ARE transitional forms, and bananas have been cultivated by mankind for the last 3,000 years to produce his convenient "Banana".

Answer 9

"I don't understand evolution, therefore it must not be true".

This is a fairly comprehensive summation of the creationist argument.

Answer 10

"I am not a cousin to a gorilla!"

It's a logic fallacy and a straw argument.