Christianity is more likely to be true than Islam

I apologize for the length of this quote, but I want to give the full quote to emphasize that the Quar"an does teach the sun sets in a pool of muddy water. QUOTE: "When he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring and found a people thereabout. We said: "O Dhul-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness"" (Surah 18:86). Lest I failed to understand what the Qur"an meant by these strange words, I referred to the famous students of the Qur"an as well as to the ancient scholars. I discovered that all of them concurred with this rendering and said that Muhammad"s friends inquired about the sunset and that he gave them that answer. All the scholars such as the Baydawi, Jalalan, and Zamakhshari confirm it. The Zamakhshari remarks in his book, "the Kash-shaf", "Abu Dharr (one of Muhammad"s close companions) was with Muhammad during the sunset. Muhammad asked him: "Do you know, O Abu Dharr where this sets?" He answered: "God and His apostle know better." Muhammad said: "It sets in a spring of slimy water"" (3rd Edition, Volume 2 p. 743,1987). In his book, "The Lights of Revelation" (p. 399), the Baydawi indicates, "The sun sets in a slimy spring; that is, a well which contains mud. Some of the readers of the Qur"an read it, "...a hot spring", thus the spring combines the two descriptions. It was said that Ibn "Abbas found Mu"awiya reading it (as) hot. He told him, "It is muddy." Mu"awiya sent to Ka"b al-Ahbar and asked him, "Where does the sun set?" He said in water and mud and there were some people. So he agreed with the statement of ibn al-"Abbas. And there was a man who composed a few verses of poetry about the setting of the sun in the slimy spring." The Jalalan (p. 251) says that the setting of the sun is in a well which contains a murky mud. We found the same interpretation and text in the Tabari"s commentaries (p. 339) as well as in "Concise Interpretation of the Tabari" (p. 19 of part 2) in which he remarks that the well in which the sun sets "contains lime and murky mud". These are the comments of the pillars of Islam and the intimate companions of Muhammad such as ibn Abbas and Aba Dharr. END QUOTE http://answering-islam.org... The sun is too large to set on earth, and its heat would destroy this whole planet let alone a well of muddy water. Muslims have offered seven contradictory interpretations of Sura 86:6-7 http://www.google.com...(Qur%27an_86%3A7)&ei=H5HQUp26LOnlsATHs4L4Cw&usg=AFQjCNH5fFLDV9FYrLwoi5VbsLVOo4DzVA&bvm=bv.59026428,d.cWc; Con has now added an eight interpretation, namely, that these verses don"t refer to sperm at all, but to water. He now contradicts the Muslims who preceded him like Moiz Amjad. http://www.google.com... In Con"s view it"s the water which is one of the ingredients of sperm that issues between the backbone and the ribs, not the sperm itself. On their website www.answering-christianity.com Muslims do acknowledge that it is indeed sperm which issues between the backbone and the ribs. http://www.google.com... The fact that they offer multiple answers shows they themselves are unsure what the Quar"an even means in this text, yet Con wants to bolster this verse as proof of scientific accuracy and use that accuracy as proof of divine revelation? What arrogance. Con says alaqah means something that clings, and refers to the embryo or zygote, but "Those who claim that 'alaqah is used in the sense of a clinging thing in the Qur'an should consider that the embryo does not cease to be attached to the uterine wall when the musculo-skeletal system begins to develop around the 5th week. Yet the Qur'anic stages appear to describe a transition between a succession of states. Moreover it would be self-evident from aborted fetuses that at some stage the embryo becomes attached to something".Apologists who are fond of leech metaphors should consider that unlike a leech, which simply sucks blood from its host, the embryo circulates and exchanges blood and waste products with its mother.[5] A leech has many characteristics such as size, behaviour, shape, color, appearance. Why would the author use 'alaqah intending such a metaphorical meaning when his listeners could not be expected to know in what respect the analogy applies? It is a typical Texan Sharpshooter fallacy[6] of apologists to choose one characteristic, shape, to an arbitrarily very limited degree find a similarity with an embryo, and draw any conclusions, particularly as the early embryo passes through a wide range of shapes and is itself a biological organism. Moreover, such apologetics have to conveniently ignore the embryo's yolk sac when depicting the embryo"Given that one of the meanings of 'alaqah is congealed blood, which was also the understanding given in numerous tafsirs, it is most unwise to use a word with such a biological meaning to describe a biological process if that meaning was not the intention. A perfect author would avoid arousing any such suspicion of inaccurate biology with his choice of words." http://www.google.com... Con tries to reconcile the discrepancies in the Quar"an by saying that man was created our of many different elements, and so by naming them individually in different suras Allah is doing contradistinction, not contradiction. Well, let"s see: We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape. Sura 15:26 But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing? Sura 19:67 So how is it possible to create man from NOTHING and yet create him from CLAY? I"d like to see Con explain how this isn"t a contradiction. Will he now say it was clay mixed with an ingredient called "nothing"? The Quar"an denies that Jesus died by crucifixion. Even those who don"t believe in the Bible know that the death of Jesus is one indisputable historical fact. "Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher or rabbi from Galilee who preached his message orally,[20] was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate." http://www.google.com... This fact is supported by Josephus and Tacitus, who lived in the first century, and the Gospel writers who were eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus. So all the historical data we have agrees with the Bible teaching of Jesus" crucifixion. The Quar"an disagrees with this evidence, and Islam is therefore less likely to be true than Christianity. Unlike Jesus, Muhammad had no miracles to back up his claim to divine authority, and unlike the Bible, the Quar"an does not teach that God"s love is extended to all mankind, but is a self-centered love that Allah only has to those who do good. Jesus preached that we should love our enemies, Allah does not love his! By contradicting Jesus, a true prophet, Muhammad showed his religion less likely to be true than Christianity.