CalvaryCougar, my apologies if I have made you feel like I am attacking you personally. My interest is solely to correct false information (presented as fact) on either side of the debate so that whatever anyone who reads this chooses to believe, they do so from a foundation of factual understanding. Not one based upon assumption, misinformation or even outright lies. I also find the psychology of belief systems fascinating generally.
As you say, you've answered many questions and while I may not be able to accept all of your answers I do appreciate you taking the time to do so. If you feel it's a little unbalanced, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have (if I can) and in fact would encourage you to ask more.
For the record some of my own personal beliefs; I have no problem accepting the overwhelming evidence for evolution requiring no designer.
I can believe that intervention at some point is technically possible but I think it's highly unlikely and no credible evidence has been found (yet) to suggest it did.
I see zero requirement for it to have happened to create diverse and complex flora and fauna around us. Evolution very adequately explains it. Add to that any so called 'designer' made so many mistakes you would certainly question their competence. I will post more on this issues as I think it's quite an interesting subject.
Anyway to answer your points..
You didnt poke any holes into the Bible. You misunderstood a verse and the context of the verse. If you read the verse before you see that the difference between these two "contradicting verses", as you called them is whether or not the woman is to be married. The first of these verses tells us if she was to be married and had a source of income (her future husband) the rapist was to be put to death.
The second verse tells us that if she did not have a fiance then the rapist was going to be responsible for the well being of the woman by being legally bound to her. If you read my previous post about the time that this was written you see that a woman who wasn't a virgin would probably have been outcast and left to take care of herself and her baby alone. This scripture made the rapist responsible for her.
"Furthermore, there was precedent under the Mosaic Law for the victimized woman not to marry the victimizer if her father determined that she could be provided for in a more suitable manner (Exodus 22:16–17). Thus, the law was not designed to force the rape victim into an unbearable marriage, but to secure her future and that of her children."
Sounds plausible enough. But assume for a minute that your are correctly interpreting the whole context. Part of the problem (and it's a major one) is that it does rely on interpretation at all. How can you say my interpretation is incorrect?
But again I'm not particularly interested to get to the bottom of this point. My morals don't come from a book (and nor do yours - you happen to agree with what's in the book because of the morals you already believe). There are plenty of other issues in the bible I could seize upon but I'd rather discuss the more important issues.
Also I can't help but think a wise, caring god would simply command for the community to support and respect the woman instead and attach no stigma so that the rapist could be punished and she could get on with her life..
Its funny when I point out scientists that don't believe as you do they are "crackpots". Did you watch the Anthony Flew video? He was once an atheist and I believe a scientist, who changed his stance. Is he a crackpot for changing his stance due to the evidence he found?
Well first I didn't call them crackpots. I said that the pseudo science is crackpot. Often made to look quite plausible superficially and easy to believe unless you are able see it objectively and demand the credible evidence for it's conclusions and assumptions.
The problem with this it's not enough to cite a x was an atheist and he changed his mind. Although I can see that as a powerful marketing tool and easily mistaken to lend credibility. It's the substance of what they are claiming that's important.
It's hard to comment without watching the whole thing (which I will endeavour to do. My observation from watching the first part it's very focused on trying to present him as credible. But it doest actually tell us anything. So I can't really add much to that.
From what I understand, this has been discredited “the very heart of Meyer’s thesis (and his book [Signature in the Cell]) is wrong.” [Hunt, Yarus]. It's discussed in the link you posted below, although it's fair to say that flaws are claimed in the rebuttal. I'll try and get a better understanding before I can say much else.
As pointed out in the following link there are some problems with this, notably the credibility is devalued by being produced by a creationist organisation and the findings are completely contradicted by the fossil record.
Darwin’s Dilemma: I watched it so you don’t have to. « Why Evolution Is True
I don't claim to be either. I am interested in enriching my understanding of the world around me though.
I've had a scan through the link above and it's hard to go into detail because it will take a lot of time to research it all.
One thing that immediately stands out though is that the above link and also the previous video both make clear reference to the fact that the earth is older than 6000 years, so I'm intruded to know how you reconcile posting this as support when they partially explicitly contradict your own views.
Im really done debating these things on the internet when I am the only Christian doing debating vs the numerous atheist attacking my beliefs.(not directed at you in particular)
Fair enough, we'll still be here if you decide to carry on.