"If man evolved from apes, then where are the missing-link fossils? Where are the half-man, half-apes?"
Rebuttal
One of the most aggravating things about creationists is their stubborn refusal to deal with evolution theory as it is defined in the textbooks, rather than their own cartoonish version of it.
Let us get one thing straight: evolution theory does not predict half-man, half-ape creatures. It predicts a gradual succession of creatures that look like men but are progressively more hairy, less intelligent, and less upright as we move back through time (along with other sundry reshaping issues such as foreheads sloping back etc).
When a creationist looks at an australopithecus fossil and says "that's just a hunched-over, small-brained, hairy man", he doesn't realize that this is what a "missing link" should look like.
Fallacy watch:
Strawman distortion (paints a false picture of evolution theory's predictions so that those predictions can be more easily attacked).
Search Database Again
Search Notes:
Key word searches always look for all of the search words,
ie- Boolean "AND".
The exact keyword search looks only for exact matches in the argument (not
the rebuttal), and it ignores commonly used words and search terms shorter than 4
letters. The normal search will accept partial word matches and any search terms,
and it will search both the arguments and rebuttals.
If you search without entering any keywords, the system will produce
a complete list of all the arguments in the database.
This site was written using OpenOffice, running on Mandriva Linux.