QUESTION #1 - Why does our chromosome 2 seem like a result of end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes found in the chimpanzees?
"I am not convinced that evolution is true, but recently I've been talking to a friend who knows a lot about it, and he asked me a question that I find difficult to answer. If evolution is false, how do we explain chromosome 2 in the human genome which quite evidently seems to be a result of end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. Here are the facts I can't explain:
1) Our chromosome 2 has almost identical DNA sequence to two separate chromosomes found in the chimpanzees, which indicates the aforementioned fusion.
2) Normally a chromosome has one centromere, but our chromosome 2 has one additional vestigial centromere, which, again, indicates that our chromosome 2 was a fusion of 2 other ancestral chromosomes.
3) Normally a chromosome has telomeres at each end, but our chromosome 2, in addition to that, has extra telomere sequences that are located far from the ends of the chromosome, and that also indicates a fusion.
How does the creationist model explain those three observed facts?"
QUESTION #2 - Why does Deut. 22.28–29 force rape victims to marry their rapists?
"I understand that Christians are not under the law of the Old Testament. Hence, I would never uphold that rule. But what I find really uncomfortable is, not the fact whether we have to follow it since quite clearly I would never do so, but the fact that this law is in the Bible. I wholeheartedly believe that the Bible was inspired by God because this is the only way to explain how unique it is. However, if God inspired the Bible, including the Old Testament, why does this law force rape victims to marry their rapists? Why did God inspire Moses to write this down?"
The usual apologetics is that the law says "if they are discovered," which supposedly indicates that the woman and the man were both giving consent to sex. Question his logic. Say that, to you, it seems as if it were merely indicating that the rapist was found raping the victim, and that's all. Ask him why he thinks it indicates consent. (This is something I really cannot understand. How the hell do you conclude that the woman was consenting based on such an ambiguous phrase?) Another fact is that it is not even certain whether the original Hebrew said "they." In the LXX, the phrase is translated as, "and he is discovered." (Focus also on the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses often make appeals to the LXX because they believe it's accurate [whenever it suits them]. Why ignore the LXX here but not in other parts?) Additionally, the passage uses the Hebrew word taphas when it says "seize." The word taphas meant literally to seize someone by force. The passage is not talking about seduction because in Hebrew, there was a different word for "seduce," and it was pathah. (This is why this law is not a repetition of Exod. 22.16–17. The claim that Deut. 22.28–29 is a repetition (or that sex was consensual) was debunked by Professor Bernard Jackson, who has actual expertise in the Jewish law.)
QUESTION #3 - Why does Exod. 21 support slavery?
Before you ask the question, get familiar with Matt Dillahunty's videos on slavery in the Bible. He explains the issue quite well, far better than I ever could. Also, learn about the usual apologetics, such as the letter to Philemon, and why it does not mean that the Bible condemns slavery. Most importantly, keep in mind that something to ask is this: "I understand that the letter to Philemon quite clearly condemns slavery, but I have a different issue. When we look through Exod. 21, it's also evident that this chapter supports slavery. If God inspired the Bible, why didn't he make his opinion on slavery very clear? Because it's not clear at all. In Exod. 21, it is extremely obvious that God supports it, while in the letter to Philemon, his opinion is quite different." (And, again, see how Matt Dillahunty debunks the apologetics Christians use to explain away Exod. 21.)