If humans evolved from monkeys then why are monkeys still around today?
Notwithstanding the fact that humans and monkeys are only believed to share a common ancestor, evolution theory suggests that if a portion of a population of a species becomes isolated from the rest of its population, these separated groups will likely begin to evolve differently. In this scenario, one group could eventually become more human-like, while the other group would remain more “monkey-like”.
The Bible clearly says that evolution did not occur.
Aside from the arguments that can be used in support of an evolutionary interpretation of biblical creation (e.g. Genesis 1:20 and 24 “God said, Let the waters bring forth”, “God said, Let the earth bring forth” etc…) or the question of whether the Biblical creation story is literal or allegoric, those who do not find the Bible a credible source of information will not take this statement seriously. The first question you will probably be asked is how do you know that the Bible is accurate? Perhaps you can say it is because the Bible states that God authored it, but then you would have to offer evidence for how you know that (1) God exists so that he could author a book; and (2) the claim that He authored the Bible is true.
If Evolution is true there is no such thing as morals.
This argument wouldn’t be effective at all in the context of theistic Evolution, and it is conceivable that in a naturalistic context a sense of right and wrong could develop over time for the sake of providing adaptive benefits within a species. The problem comes about when attempting to justify our current ethical values from a naturalistic standpoint. What adaptive benefits come from believing that stealing from the rich is wrong? Or the belief that it is wrong to take justice into your own hands? And what reason is there to be morally invested in ethical beliefs to begin with seeing that things we declare right and wrong are not absolute truths?
Evolution is just a theory; theories are not the same as facts.
This argument is ineffective for the reason that it does no harm for an evolutionist to agree to this point. A theory is meant to be a plausible explanation of the facts at hand—one they believe to be a more plausible explanation than creation. It would be more persuasive to offer reasons for why you believe that creation is more a more plausible theory than evolution.
Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
If the argument is that a violation of some scientific principle is evidence of the falsity of an alleged occurrence, then one could say that miraculous events in the bible that seemingly violate scientific principles are also false. Of course, you could say that God can violate any law God wants to, but then why couldn’t God violate the law of thermodynamics to cause Evolution?