I can't see the wind, but I can feel it's effects, right?

I think the absolute winner is:

"You know, evolution and the big bang theories have a lot of holes in them and things they can't really explain"

O RLY? Because the Bible is rock solid proof, amirite?

And I really wish they'd stop using these two:

"Evolution is just a THEORY"

and

"If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes"

Also, this probably goes without saying, but anytime you ask them to explain a fallacy in their logic and all they do is quote a Bible verse.

"If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Asiawired: yes it is a weak question. Animals do not benefit from having an extra mouth- you only need one to eat- but mouths do serve as a potential entry point for infection and disease, and so can be a liability. Not to mention all the energy required to grow and use all those teeth and muscles.

So it's entirely possible that animals with more than one mouth have appeared at some point in history... they just would be less likely to survive than their monoral cousins. Read up some more- evolution is the result of mutation, which is random, and natural selection, which is not.

It has to be "If we are descended from monkeys, the why are there still monkeys?"

This fails on so many points it would be laughable if they weren't serious.

Had an interesting conversation with a Rabbi who was also a medical doctor, his arguments were so weak it was laughable. He ignored Natural Selection which as a main basis of evolution made his entire argument collapse when it was introduced

All their arguments are week but I guess, maybe "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" but that one is just so hilarious that I would miss it.

Would have to say the improbability argument because they fail to understand that a god making everything the way it is still falls into the realm of random chances because each decision is still a random chance and the god is more improbable because you have to add at least one step of creating that god though the creation of a god would take more then one step in all reality..

That the second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible and disproves evolutionary theory. Sounds plausible to someone who has only read the creationist pitch on the second law of thermodynamics but is ignorant nonsense to anyone who knows more. Other then that the "if evolution is real why are there still monkeys?" silliness.

What did the big bang bang from? Can you build life from base elements? Genetic material is never added so how do you get a new genus? The string theory implies a God.

Dawkins believes that Aliens seeded Earth. Now there is something to believe in!

If we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?

There are no transitional fossils!

Evolution is only a theory...and it contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics!

Seriously, they are all weak. Pathetic.

any argument that claims soemthing that has no evidence to prove or support its existence exists for a fact, is right away flawed and weak

if beleivers would just show themselves, as many do nowadays, to be more rational and say 'your right, theres no evidence, nothing that supports or proves my claims, but i beleive it too be true, and i respect your views that you dont'

thats it, thats all taht i ask, and thats not that difficult, is it?

Arguement from design is the most futile.

And the first cause arguement!

And anything from the Aquinas five 'proofs'.

almost anything that they say. "well, this couldn't happen" or "that couldn't happen without god doing it." The worst argument for creation, however, has to be, "Nothing comes from nothing." So, who made god? "Duh, he came from nothing. He has always been," Creationists need to stop worrying so much about intelligent design and concentrate on intelligent argument.