TheistKillah

Straight forward question, what impact do you consider Eminem to have had on rap?

Who else?

I mean seriously. I've never met a theist that considers Evolution false but has a sound understanding of genetics and features like Alu elements and endogenous retroviruses.

Are they just so devout to their beliefs that they ignore any evidence that contradicts it or gullible?

I asked a question as to what theists considered to be the strongest logical argument for the existence of God. If the Anthropic principle suffers from logical fallacies then it is flawed in some respects and possibly as an argument.

I submit that it suffers from affirming the consequent and is a straw man argument.

Straw man argument - In Science the anthropic principle is used as a statement against weighting our conclusions based on our frame of reference where as the anthropic principle that Theists use argues that because of our observable frame of reference there is a god. For example the arguments used in fine tuning and evolution.

Affirming the consequent- an example of affirming the consequent would be if your street is wet and you conclude it's been raining. In the same respect the straw man (theist) version of the anthropic principle concludes that we are here therefore the universe was made for us or in the fine tuning argument the earth is perfect for life (it isn't) therefore it was made for us.

For those who bothered to read it, does the theistic version of anthropic principle suffer from logical fallacies?

As the title says "Theist's what do you consider the strongest logical argument for the existence of a God?"

For any atheists or agnostics, what do you consider the worst logical argument for the existence of a God?

William Lain Craig in his Cosmological argument argues that time cannot be infinite as in order to reach the present there must be a finite of time in the past. If time were infinite there could never be a present as an infinite amount of time would have had to of passed.

I've heard before that this is an application of Zeno's paradox though I fail to see how.

I know his cosmological argument is logically flawed overall and in other aspects, it's rather specific to Zeno's paradox. Ignore all other issues with the argument.

If evolutionary theory is false then I'm interested to know what a creationist explanation for the following genetic traits are.

Endogenous retroviruses, viruses that have attached themselves to specific genes on the genome which have then been inherited. Think along the lines of HIV, the virus is passed down via reproduction. Humans and Chimpanzees share 16 endogenous retroviruses, take into consideration the fact that most of these viruses no longer exist except for in these genomes.

How did this happen from a creationist perspective?

Why do Humans share 7 ALU elements with chimpanzees in their genomes?

Why are there only 20 odd amino acids used in the genetic code for life when there are over 400 amino acids?