The Religion Discussion

[Dizzy28]

I never said only 6,000

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v ... rse-hi-res

Indeed!!!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I never said only 6,000

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v ... rse-hi-res

the first 40 seconds of that video, Jason Lisle says that "evolutionary colleagues thought they would be looking back in time at galaxies now forming, but what they saw were fully formed, fully designed galaxies". This is not true!

Hubble has shown alot of galaxies now being formed including "stellar nurseries"
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/stellar_nurseries.html

how am I to take him seriously from there on when he is pushing his bias from the get-go?

This is also the guy who said
"1. If the Bible were not true, logic would not be meaningful.
2. Logic is meaningful.
3. Therefore, the Bible is true."
—Jason Lisle

that's almost like saying "If Santa were not real, kids would not get presents. Kids get presents, therefore Santa is real."
In fact his statement is not even that good, since there is NO direct relation between the meaningfulness of logic and the true-ness of the Bible (they are not mutually exclusive), however there is a direct relation between the stories of Santa and bringing presents for good boys and girls around the world.

I could also replace "Bible" with "Qur'an", "Gita", "Torah" or even "Spiderman comicbook" - would it make any more or less sense? no!

Read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Seems unlike most "creationist scientists" (whatever that is) Dr. Lisle really does have a PhD in Astrophysics, but he essentially throws out the conventional science just because it conflicts with scripture and then proposes that "creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically". Most of Lisle's points just begin with the claim that the Bible must be true, cannot change and so can explain everything.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_Lisle

That is not scientific!

[bluefete]

And after all that, I come back to the basic question: "What caused the big bang"?

If matter existed to cause the big bang, was it always around?

How come scientists always "brakes' from answering these questions?

I know, Duane would say that they withhold comment until they have enough "empirical evidence" to put forth a theory.

[MG Man]

science simply does not know...........but not knowing does not automatically default to 'god did it'
BTW Hawkings demonstrated that it is possible for matter to appear from noting, without the help of robed hippie

[Habit7]

I never said only 6,000

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v ... rse-hi-res

the first 40 seconds of that video, Jason Lisle says that "evolutionary colleagues thought they would be looking back in time at galaxies now forming, but what they saw were fully formed, fully designed galaxies". This is not true!

Dr Lisle has conducted astronomical research at a PH.d level. A level at which unlike a B.Sc and M.Phil level one oppose conventional science with the requisite evidence and plausible explanation that has been peer reviewed. Such is part of the scientific process. Your exploration of the NASA website pales in comparison to his research. This article with references further explains his claim http://www.icr.org/article/6943/

Quoting from a atheist wiki website about a man who probably forgot more about astronomy than you can remember, doesn't disprove the scientific evidence you claim to look for. You just disagree with it.

[MG Man]

lol at your logic / evidence
he is not the only scientist to ignore his own scientific evidence when it is at odds with his religion, and then go on to force a fit

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I never said only 6,000

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v ... rse-hi-res

the first 40 seconds of that video, Jason Lisle says that "evolutionary colleagues thought they would be looking back in time at galaxies now forming, but what they saw were fully formed, fully designed galaxies". This is not true!

Dr Lisle has conducted astronomical research at a PH.d level. A level at which unlike a B.Sc and M.Phil level one oppose conventional science with the requisite evidence and plausible explanation that has been peer reviewed. Such is part of the scientific process. Your exploration of the NASA website pales in comparison to his research. This article with references further explains his claim http://www.icr.org/article/6943/

Quoting from a atheist wiki website about a man who probably forgot more about astronomy than you can remember, doesn't disprove the scientific evidence you claim to look for. You just disagree with it.

I didnt say it disproved it - I made my own points prior
I linked to the wiki to show additional points made by others.

Also peer reviewed by whom? Have his creationist points been peer reviewed in well known, published Science or Astronomy journals?

[Habit7]

Also peer reviewed by whom? Have his creationist points been peer reviewed in well known, published Science or Astronomy journals?

Hey it seems like you are a man of the Book after all, all we are just quibbling about is which one we will put our faith in to believe that it is true.

[bluefete]

science simply does not know...........but not knowing does not automatically default to 'god did it'
BTW Hawkings demonstrated that it is possible for matter to appear from noting, without the help of robed hippie

First good response I have read from you in a loooooooooonnnnnnnngggggggggg while

But a theory must have an originating point, not so? What was the originating point for the big bang? An ever expanding universe that is racing away from itself? I am not discounting the big bang because God can cause a creation to come into existence by infinite means.

Likewise did Dawkins try to show that life came from mud/dirt.

(Lunch over).

[MG Man]

But a theory must have an originating point, not so? .

nope

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Also peer reviewed by whom? Have his creationist points been peer reviewed in well known, published Science or Astronomy journals?

Hey it seems like you are a man of the Book after all, all we are just quibbling about is which one we will put our faith in to believe that it is true.

no I don't have any faith in those books

faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof

you are pulling red herrings again

my interest in this instance is in having hypotheses peer reviewed.
"Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers.) It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication."

the process of religion is that the book is written and then interpretations and thoughts are made. The process of science is that the thoughts are made, then tests are done to prove it and if proven a book is made reporting on the results.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I never said only 6,000

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v ... rse-hi-res

the first 40 seconds of that video, Jason Lisle says that "evolutionary colleagues thought they would be looking back in time at galaxies now forming, but what they saw were fully formed, fully designed galaxies". This is not true!

Dr Lisle has conducted astronomical research at a PH.d level. A level at which unlike a B.Sc and M.Phil level one oppose conventional science with the requisite evidence and plausible explanation that has been peer reviewed. Such is part of the scientific process. Your exploration of the NASA website pales in comparison to his research. This article with references further explains his claim http://www.icr.org/article/6943/

I'm sure Dr Lisle did alot of good astronomical research. i know surgeons who know nothing of evolution though because they don't need to do evolutionary biology in detail to do their job.

Dr. Lisle cannot however apply science for some things and then claim a supernatural event for the parts that he wants just so it fits his preconceived beliefs. That is not science. It needs to show science right around otherwise it cannot be considered scientific.



that's like the Ancient Greeks looking for a reason why lightning caused a fire in the village and because they don't have the scientific knowledge of lightning, they claim a supernatural force i.e. Zeus was angry with the village so he shot a lightning bolt from his staff and so to prevent if from happening again they need to build a bigger temple to Zeus and pray more.

[DFC]

[Habit7]

You claim to be a-religious but you defend science like Mormon defending that Salt Lake City is the Holy Land.

faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof

you are pulling red herrings again

Again, out of the 8 definitions of faith, you choose one, regardless of it context http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

Dr. Lisle views have been peer reviewed and published. To demand that it be peer reviewed in the same naturalistic scientific journals you believe in is like wanting Watchtower to be published in Christianity Today. Watch Ben Stein's (an agnostic) Expelled on netflix and see how easy it is for that to happen.

Again you are mixing up your sciences. The theory of Big Bang is the best possible naturalistic explanation. Therefore this cannot be done for it "tests are done to prove it and if proven a book is made reporting on the results."

Dr. Lisle cannot however apply science for some things and then claim a supernatural event for the parts that he wants just so it fits his preconceived beliefs. That is not science. It needs to show science right around otherwise it cannot be considered scientific.

Really he can't, why? I thought we were about getting answers? How does science explain eternal matter, how energy cannot be created or destroyed, how did laws like gravity and enthalpy evolved, and the great organisation of systems we have by random chance?

that's like the Ancient Greeks looking for a reason why lightning caused a fire in the village and because they don't have the scientific knowledge of lightning, they claim a supernatural force i.e. Zeus was angry with the village so he shot a lightning bolt from his staff and so to prevent if from happening again they need to build a bigger temple to Zeus and pray more.

^^^oh look a red herring
When next you encounter a Greek pagan arguing for the creation of the world according to Greek mythology, use this on him. It will really take the wind out of his sails.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

You claim to be a-religious but you defend science like Mormon defending that Salt Lake City is the Holy Land.

faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof

you are pulling red herrings again

Again, out of the 8 definitions of faith, you choose one, regardless of it context http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

no I chose the one that IS in context with the point I was making. Besides is that meaning wrong?

red herrings again

Dr. Lisle views have been peer reviewed and published.

published where? please quote it here.

To demand that it be peer reviewed in the same naturalistic scientific journals you believe in is like wanting Watchtower to be published in Christianity Today.

no it's not. Science is science, based in fact, regardless of who is reviewing it.

You want to claim he is some big scientist regarding creationism and that his claims are intellectually accurate, yet he can't be reviewed by other scientists?

Watch Ben Stein's (an agnostic) Expelled on netflix and see how easy it is for that to happen.

Ben Stien is NOT agnostic, he very much opposes evolution theory and very much supports intelligent design. And yes I watched Expelled; it's like a colour blind teacher being angry that they won't allow him to teach chromatics to an university art class.

Again you are mixing up your sciences. The theory of Big Bang is the best possible naturalistic explanation. Therefore this cannot be done for it "tests are done to prove it and if proven a book is made reporting on the results."

science is not based on feelings.

"The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory and is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae. The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxies—are derived from these and other observations that are independent of any cosmological model. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it is inferred that everything was closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures."

In 2011 a type Ia supernova was observed from an early stage and the results of the observation further compounded the concepts of an expanding universe.

The great thing about science is that if tomorrow they observe something contrary to their previous hypotheses, then science will change its position and formulate new hypotheses based on the new evidence. Religion does not work like that.

Dr. Lisle cannot however apply science for some things and then claim a supernatural event for the parts that he wants just so it fits his preconceived beliefs. That is not science. It needs to show science right around otherwise it cannot be considered scientific.

Really he can't, why? I thought we were about getting answers? How does science explain eternal matter, how energy cannot be created or destroyed, how did laws like gravity and enthalpy evolved, and the great organisation of systems we have by random chance?

Science never claimed to have all the answers at once. 500 years ago scientists didnt know what they know now and in 500 year they will know even more - they accept that.

You cannot go filling all the gaps in your knowledge with "well that is due to supernatural forces" cause then you end up like the Ancient Greeks thinking that lightning came from Zeus when he was angry.

You can do it if you like, but it is NOT science!

that's like the Ancient Greeks looking for a reason why lightning caused a fire in the village and because they don't have the scientific knowledge of lightning, they claim a supernatural force i.e. Zeus was angry with the village so he shot a lightning bolt from his staff and so to prevent if from happening again they need to build a bigger temple to Zeus and pray more.

^^^oh look a red herring
When next you encounter a Greek pagan arguing for the creation of the world according to Greek mythology, use this on him. It will really take the wind out of his sails.

how is that a red herring?

[Habit7]

Duane I really can engage you but you are doing the same tap dance you did for the past +10 pages.

You claim there exist no evidence...then you most the goalposts to no scientific evidence...then you disagree with the science...then you require that the defendant parrot your view because they are wrong and that you are the arbiter of science (despite the credentials of those you oppose).

You sir are just as religious as anyone else here. You have faith (check the religious meaning) that the science you understand, explains your worldview, and the unexplainable will be understood someday when science comes down and raptures you to a world of understanding.

Every counterpoint must be explained through your science worldview (with requisite quoting from scientific scripture) however at the end, your interpretation reigns supreme.

And at the end of the day, when your elevated hominid carbon lifeform body loses its spark, you will drift off into the heaven of decomposition and non-existance, unaccountable for any life you lived prior.

*just thought I would save us a page of going back and forth*

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ You think everything works like religion so that is the only way you can see it.

You claim to be "scientific" yet you insist on filling the gaps in scientific knowledge with "God did it" and I am saying that is not science.

you seem to be in love with the term "worldview" and use it almost as a derogatory term yet I think you are showing signs of myopia.

You not only dismiss any scientific evidence that does not conform to your own beliefs, but you also write-off anyone else's religious beliefs.

You talk about pages ago, but when I asked why your religious beliefs were right and AdamB's own was wrong, you threw out the usual diversions and then eventually said "because it says so in the bible".

I have no reason to move any goal posts, since I have no need to score.
Oh look, there's that burden of proof again!

[MG Man]

Burden of proof is burdensome

[Habit7]

I dont "fill the gaps in scientific knowledge with "God did it"" I maintain God conceived it, constructed it and is maintaining it, science is us just trying to explain how He did it. You are the one who has to fill the gaps because you believe someday, sometime that science will explain all the mysteries, as if science is making that claim of itself. Likewise to Darwin basing his theory on the simple cell and that in time to come, the fossil record will be completed.

Worldview is not negative, nor I am I using it negatively, it speaks well for those who would deny personal religiosity and those who affirm it, such as myself. I too have a worldview.

I can likewise say that you too "dismiss any scientific evidence that does not conform to your own beliefs." Also you disagree with Richard Dawkins, but this is what true tolerance is, in the midst of disagreements you tolerable of other views.

You talk about pages ago, but when I asked why your religious beliefs were right and AdamB's own was wrong, you threw out the usual diversions and then eventually said "because it says so in the bible".

You mind taking on that burden of proof and quote where I said that?

Such as when you moved the goal posts here:

^ sorry my second structure should have included "more"

and the one that started this discussion

so give us some intellectually accurate data supporting a universe that is 6000 only years old

and other times you claim that faith is not based on proof even though when confronted with proof you always disagree with it so as to not acknowledge a contradiction to your false premise.

[Kasey]

where's dspike? Long time me eh read im.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I dont "fill the gaps in scientific knowledge with "God did it"" I maintain God conceived it, constructed it and is maintaining it,

isn't that the same thing?

science is us just trying to explain how He did it.

no that's creation science. Your myopia is showing. Real science would not suggest a "He" unless there was empirical evidence, which there isn't.

You are the one who has to fill the gaps because you believe someday, sometime that science will explain all the mysteries, as if science is making that claim of itself.

science seeks the truth, regardless of what that truth may be. At least science is not filling the gaps with supernatural explanations.

Likewise to Darwin basing his theory on the simple cell and that in time to come, the fossil record will be completed.

there you go with "completed" again - that is a fallacy you have from thinking all answers are in a text. there is nothing complete about science, it is continuous, ongoing method of testing, observing and finding. it would be pretty boring if scientists were to stop testing, observing and finding because they reached the end of their quest for knowledge.

try to think outside that box

Worldview is not negative, nor I am I using it negatively, it speaks well for those who would deny personal religiosity and those who affirm it, such as myself. I too have a worldview.

lol @ deny. You also seem to think that everyone has a religion.

not everyone believes what you believe and believing in something does not make it true, no matter how much people believe it or how much they believe it.

I can likewise say that you too "dismiss any scientific evidence that does not conform to your own beliefs." Also you disagree with Richard Dawkins, but this is what true tolerance is, in the midst of disagreements you tolerable of other views.

what scientific evidence have I dismissed? Also i said earlier that I didnt read Dawkins books and other than a few short youtube videos I havent delved much into his thoughts - so I'm not sure where I disagreed with him.

You talk about pages ago, but when I asked why your religious beliefs were right and AdamB's own was wrong, you threw out the usual diversions and then eventually said "because it says so in the bible".

You mind taking on that burden of proof and quote where I said that?

you said it a number of places including here

what makes the bible right and the Qur'an wrong

The Bible rightly demonstrates God reconciles man to himself through sacrificial atonement of Jesus. However, the Qur'an pressures man to work to be reconciled to Allah, with the hope that he will unjustly forgive those he chooses.

that basically says "because it says so in the bible". You didn't show where, or why it was right, no proof was given. Just a statement that it is right and the other was wrong.

Such as when you moved the goal posts here:

^ sorry my second structure should have included "more"

so I stated that that my question could also be "what makes the bible MORE right and the Qur'an wrong", because you wanted to duck from answering the question claiming that was a very different question from a question that left out the word "more". How is that moving the goalpost?
Right, More right? just give me an answer!

and the one that started this discussion

so give us some intellectually accurate data supporting a universe that is 6000 only years old

and other times you claim that faith is not based on proof even though when confronted with proof you always disagree with it so as to not acknowledge a contradiction to your false premise.

I never said faith is not based on proof. The Dictionary says Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof. If you had proof then you would not need faith!

What proof did you confront me with? You bring claims that I question because I find holes in your claims. That is not proof. It might be proof to you but it would not stand up in a lab, which is why the "proof" your brought from Dr. Jason Lisle was never taken by him for peer review in a scientific manner.

you've yet to make a valid point that I can say "ok that one has me thinking and wanting to change my point of view". I'm using simple logic to argue here.

[maj. tom]

Here we go again... is this justice, common sense, fairness?
TL;DR?
Girl,15 was raped by step-father, got pregnant, step-father murdered the baby when it was born. Girl is sentenced to 100 lashes for pre-marital sex.

(The legal system of the Maldives, an Islamic archipelago with a population of some 400,000, has elements of Islamic law (Sharia) as well as English common law.)


Maldives girl gets 100 lashes for pre-marital sex

A 15-year-old rape victim has been sentenced to 100 lashes for engaging in premarital sex, court officials said.

The charges against the girl were brought against her last year after police investigated accusations that her stepfather had raped her and killed their baby. He is still to face trial.

Prosecutors said her conviction did not relate to the rape case.

Amnesty International condemned the punishment as "cruel, degrading and inhumane".

The government said it did not agree with the punishment and that it would look into changing the law.

Baby death

Zaima Nasheed, a spokesperson for the juvenile court, said the girl was also ordered to remain under house arrest at a children's home for eight months.

She defended the punishment, saying the girl had willingly committed an act outside of the law.

Officials said she would receive the punishment when she turns 18, unless she requested it earlier.

The case was sent for prosecution after police were called to investigate a dead baby buried on the island of Feydhoo in Shaviyani Atoll, in the north of the country.

Her stepfather was accused of raping her and impregnating her before killing the baby. The girl's mother also faces charges for failing to report the abuse to the authorities.

The legal system of the Maldives, an Islamic archipelago with a population of some 400,000, has elements of Islamic law (Sharia) as well as English common law.

Ahmed Faiz, a researcher with Amnesty International, said flogging was "cruel, degrading and inhumane" and urged the authorities to abolish it.

"We are very surprised that the government is not doing anything to stop this punishment - to remove it altogether from the statute books."

"This is not the only case. It is happening frequently - only last month there was another girl who was sexually abused and sentenced to lashes."

He said he did not know when the punishment was last carried out as people were not willing to discuss it openly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21595814

[Habit7]

no that's creation science. Your myopia is showing. Real science would not suggest a "He" unless there was empirical evidence, which there isn't.

What empirical evidence will warrant a proof in 'your view in which you interpret the world' for a creator being.

[AdamB]

Here we go again... is this justice, common sense, fairness?
TL;DR?
Girl,15 was raped by step-father, got pregnant, step-father murdered the baby when it was born. Girl is sentenced to 100 lashes for pre-marital sex.

(The legal system of the Maldives, an Islamic archipelago with a population of some 400,000, has elements of Islamic law (Sharia) as well as English common law.)


Maldives girl gets 100 lashes for pre-marital sex

A 15-year-old rape victim has been sentenced to 100 lashes for engaging in premarital sex, court officials said.

The charges against the girl were brought against her last year after police investigated accusations that her stepfather had raped her and killed their baby. He is still to face trial.

Prosecutors said her conviction did not relate to the rape case.

Amnesty International condemned the punishment as "cruel, degrading and inhumane".

The government said it did not agree with the punishment and that it would look into changing the law.

Baby death

Zaima Nasheed, a spokesperson for the juvenile court, said the girl was also ordered to remain under house arrest at a children's home for eight months.

She defended the punishment, saying the girl had willingly committed an act outside of the law.

Officials said she would receive the punishment when she turns 18, unless she requested it earlier.

The case was sent for prosecution after police were called to investigate a dead baby buried on the island of Feydhoo in Shaviyani Atoll, in the north of the country.

Her stepfather was accused of raping her and impregnating her before killing the baby. The girl's mother also faces charges for failing to report the abuse to the authorities.

The legal system of the Maldives, an Islamic archipelago with a population of some 400,000, has elements of Islamic law (Sharia) as well as English common law.

Ahmed Faiz, a researcher with Amnesty International, said flogging was "cruel, degrading and inhumane" and urged the authorities to abolish it.

"We are very surprised that the government is not doing anything to stop this punishment - to remove it altogether from the statute books."

"This is not the only case. It is happening frequently - only last month there was another girl who was sexually abused and sentenced to lashes."

He said he did not know when the punishment was last carried out as people were not willing to discuss it openly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21595814

Maldives Girl Repeatedly Raped By Her Father Is Sentenced To 100 Lashes After Admitting Adultery With Another Man Huffington Post UK | By Sara C Nelson Posted: 27/02/2013 11:13 GMT | Updated: 27/02/2013 11:19 GMT


A teenage girl whose step-father is accused of repeatedly raping her and murdering their subsequent child has been sentenced to 100 lashes for admitting to having pre-marital sex in a separate incident.

The 15-year-old will receive her punishment when she turns 18, a Maldives juvenile court official told AFP.

The source added: “But the sentence will be enforced immediately if she wants it to be carried out now”.

The Maldives' legal system contains elements of Islamic Sharia law, as well as English common law

The teenager is also sentenced to eight months under house arrest in the Indian Ocean nation where premarital is illegal. It is unclear if the girl's male partner will also be charged.

Maldives daily newspaper Haveeru said the decision to charge the girl with adultery had sparked outrage from government institutions including the Gender and Human Rights Ministry.

It reports: “Following the criticism, [the]Prosecutor General’s office had reviewed its decision to ensure if there are any reasons to dismiss the fornication charges against the underage girl. However, the PG’s office later found no grounds to drop the charges against the girl.”

Both the girl and her stepfather were arrested after the body of their baby was found buried near their home on Feydhoo island in June 2012.

The stepfather is accused by police of repeatedly raping her and fathering a child by her which he subsequently murdered. Her mother has also been charged with the murder of the baby.

The teenager has been charged with helping dispose of the infant's body, AFP said.

[AdamB]

Maldives girl facing 100 lashes for pre-marital sex
Updated at 9:18 pm on 27 February 2013

A 15-year-old rape victim in the Maldives is facing a flogging of 100 lashes after being convicted of engaging in pre-marital sex.

The government and groups such as Amnesty International are criticising the court's decision, which was not directly related to the rape.

Behind the Maldives' image as a honeymoon paradise of coral islands lies a society whose people are often subjected to harsh laws. Women are overwhelmingly more likely than men to be sentenced to public flogging for fornication, the BBC reports.

The girl in the north of the country was raped last year by her step-father, who was also convicted of murdering the baby born as a result.

But during investigation, the 15-year-old was accused of having pre-marital sex with another man. She is now being sentenced to eight months of house arrest and to 100 lashes.

The Islamic Sharia punishment is to take place when she turns 18, but can happen earlier if she requests it.

A presidential spokesperson said the government saw the underage girl as a victim deserving of protection, not punishment.

He said there would be discussions with the Islamic Affairs Ministry to review this case and the law.

Human rights group Amnesty International and the United Nations' human rights chief have both denounced the Maldives' use of flogging, which they describe as inhumane and degrading.

Yet severe forms of punishment, said to be Sharia inspired, remain in place in the tiny country.

[metalgear2095]

Maldives girl facing 100 lashes for pre-marital sex
Updated at 9:18 pm on 27 February 2013

A 15-year-old rape victim in the Maldives is facing a flogging of 100 lashes after being convicted of engaging in pre-marital sex.

The government and groups such as Amnesty International are criticising the court's decision, which was not directly related to the rape.

Behind the Maldives' image as a honeymoon paradise of coral islands lies a society whose people are often subjected to harsh laws. Women are overwhelmingly more likely than men to be sentenced to public flogging for fornication, the BBC reports.

The girl in the north of the country was raped last year by her step-father, who was also convicted of murdering the baby born as a result.

But during investigation, the 15-year-old was accused of having pre-marital sex with another man. She is now being sentenced to eight months of house arrest and to 100 lashes.

The Islamic Sharia punishment is to take place when she turns 18, but can happen earlier if she requests it.

A presidential spokesperson said the government saw the underage girl as a victim deserving of protection, not punishment.

He said there would be discussions with the Islamic Affairs Ministry to review this case and the law.

Human rights group Amnesty International and the United Nations' human rights chief have both denounced the Maldives' use of flogging, which they describe as inhumane and degrading.

Yet severe forms of punishment, said to be Sharia inspired, remain in place in the tiny country.

Great religion there buddy:???:

[AdamB]

Maldives girl facing 100 lashes for pre-marital sex
Updated at 9:18 pm on 27 February 2013

A 15-year-old rape victim in the Maldives is facing a flogging of 100 lashes after being convicted of engaging in pre-marital sex.

The government and groups such as Amnesty International are criticising the court's decision, which was not directly related to the rape.

Behind the Maldives' image as a honeymoon paradise of coral islands lies a society whose people are often subjected to harsh laws. Women are overwhelmingly more likely than men to be sentenced to public flogging for fornication, the BBC reports.

The girl in the north of the country was raped last year by her step-father, who was also convicted of murdering the baby born as a result.

But during investigation, the 15-year-old was accused of having pre-marital sex with another man. She is now being sentenced to eight months of house arrest and to 100 lashes.

The Islamic Sharia punishment is to take place when she turns 18, but can happen earlier if she requests it.

A presidential spokesperson said the government saw the underage girl as a victim deserving of protection, not punishment.

He said there would be discussions with the Islamic Affairs Ministry to review this case and the law.

Human rights group Amnesty International and the United Nations' human rights chief have both denounced the Maldives' use of flogging, which they describe as inhumane and degrading.

Yet severe forms of punishment, said to be Sharia inspired, remain in place in the tiny country.

Great religion there buddy:???:

Yes, it's GREAT!!!

If people don't see the wisdom and justice in it, that doesn't make it "severe, cruel or unjust".

Why doesn't the media report FAIRLY and accurately? Twisting the facts or only focusing on certain aspects is in itself unfair. But's what get people like you guys "riled up".

It's cruel to punish a 15/16/18 year old girl for having pre-marital sex in a state with "elements" of Islamic law BUT right here in T&T it's good and proper that our 12-17 year old girls have sex every day in and out of our schools with multiple partners. It's also not unjust to allow them to abort the foetuses....

Maybe MGMan can comment appropriately now.

My wife is a teacher and the instances I speak of in our schools are RAMPANT and REAL. Just 2 wks ago, a form 1 girl was cutting school having sexual relations with a twenty-something year old man, taking her to El Socorro from central area. He was charged, she wasn't flogged but shamed herself and her family.

Oh sorry, these things are to be proud of, just animal evolutionary instincts at work.

[Dizzy28]

Was watching BBC's story on the Pope's last audience this morning and they interviewed two people in Basilica Square. One of the girls was introduced as Maria from Trinidad and Tobago. pretty cool.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

no that's creation science. Your myopia is showing. Real science would not suggest a "He" unless there was empirical evidence, which there isn't.

What empirical evidence will warrant a proof in 'your view in which you interpret the world' for a creator being.

any empirical evidence will be proof.

asking me WHAT or which empirical evidence will suffice to ME as proof is demonstrating that you think there is some empirical evidence that I will have faith in and others that I wont. Empirical evidence IS proof, if there is proof then there is no need for faith.

you really need to open up your mind and stop thinking that everything is based on faith.
YOU have faith in SOME science and you have no faith in some science especially the science that goes against your religious beliefs and you either think that is the way science works OR that is the way everyone thinks. Neither one is true.
Faith is not needed in science. Faith is needed in religion.

[MG Man]

PLAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!