So you think we came from monkeys
This argument usually comes from the misunderstanding of the scientific perspective. I will go into Pond soup, nothing and monkeys as 3 of the versions brought up most frequently.
1: Pond soup - This refers to the theory of Abiogenesis which generally is interpreted as a small pond wherein amino acids are formed with electricity, most probably from lightning. This claim isn't as absurd as some of the other ones around yet is still relatively wrong. There is nothing about soup in abiogenesis, and if queried further, the intellect of the theist (presumably) will become apparent. Abiogenesis explains a theory of how life came to be, not the universe (for clarification).
2: Nothing - It is plainly wrong to say that evolution or abiogenesis or even the big bang suddenly happended with no cause and nothing before it. That notion is obviously flawed and only serves as a straw man fallacy, known to be used by apologists such as Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron in an episode of 'The way of the master', a tv series hosted by the two. When the argument is used, it is usually used flippantly, without real understanding. During the big bang there was presupposing matter and energy before the singularity. Abiogenesis is the formation of life and does not have 'nothing' involved and evolution explains the diversity of life, and again, no reference to 'nothing'.
3: monkeys - This version of the argument refers to evolution. In particular, the evolution of the human race. A common misconception about evolution is that we evolved from the monkeys we see today. In reality, we evolved from a common ancestor, one that branched off to form a heirachy of species of which we are included in. This misconception led to the argument of 'if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?'. That particular argument can be reformed to 'If america was colonised by the english then why is there still england?', This rewording shows precisely the falsehood of the argument.