Science and Islam

I'll have to start by saying that Con's arguments are almost entirely taken from other sources. It's one thing to quote, but an entirely different thing to copy-paste everything and not even put some of it in quotation marks. What's more, the same thing happened in my old debate with Con, and some of his debates with other people. I am calling this out because it is not acceptable behavior, and I think Con should make it come to an end. I will respond to his arguments in hope that he can reply with his own words. Rebuttals 1. Fluid from between ribs and backbone In his first argument, Con claimed that the Quran is wrong in saying that humans are created from a fluid that "proceeds from between the backbone and the ribs." Con's argument is very short, and lacks fundamental parts in fulfilling the criteria needed to interpret the Quran. For example, Con neither read this verse in Arabic, nor did he analyze the context, etc. So, is the Quran wrong in its claim? Most definitely not, and here's why: A: All fluid is not sperm The claim that the Quran refers to sperm in this verse seems entirely illogical. The word used for 'fluid' in Arabic is 'Ma-in.' It means 'liquid, fluid, juice, water.' [1] This has nothing to do with sperm. The possibilities are many. The fluid might be blood, water, or anything else - But to argue that since the Quran mentions humans being created from a fluid that is emitted from between the chest and backbone, and thus conclude that this must refer to the sperm, is simply a non-sequitur. One establishes a conclusion that does not follow from its premises, which is exactly what Con does. Logical fallacies do not make good arguments. B: Blood and water are emitted from the heart The Quran mentions several times that all living things were created from water. What about humans? "And it is He Who created human beings from water and then gave them relations by blood and marriage. Your Lord is All-Powerful." (Q 25:54) Obviously, if the Quran states that humans are created from water, then it can rightly say that we are created from a fluid that emits from between the backbone and the ribs. This fluid is possibly water. Although the heart (located between b/r) pumps blood around the body, the major fraction of it is indeed water. "About 83% of our blood is water, which helps digest our food, transport waste, and control body temperature." [2] Thus, it is completely true that humans are created from a fluid that is emitted from between the chest and the backbone. The fluid is blood, which is mostly made up of water. Should this explanation not suffice - and I don't see why not - then consider the other arguments. C: Seminal fluids mix in the abdomen Since the Quran clearly does not refer to the sperm or the testicles, one could argue that it refers to the fluid that is mixed up right before it gushes out of the penis. This is semen, which is a mixture of seminal fluids and sperm. In fact, sperm makes up only around 5% of the whole fluid that is gushed out during ejaculation. So, where does the mixture take place? "Sperm travel from the testes to the epididymis where they mature. During ejaculation sperm travel up into the abdomen from the epididymis in the ductus (vas) deferens to the ejaculatory ducts. The ejaculatory ducts move semen into the urethra. Once in the urethra, semen (sperm now is bathed in the seminal fluid released from the various other reproductive structures) moves through the prostate gland and down to the urethral opening at the tip of the penis. The seminal vesicles and Cowper's glands are not included in the path of sperm as they contribute to seminal fluid but do not have sperm moving through them at any time." [3] One should look closely at the picture in reference #3 under the "Path of Sperm" heading, which shows that the sperm goes all the way into the abdomen to become mixed with other seminal fluids. This leads us to the question: Is the abdomen between the ribs and the backbone? I don't find any good reason to disagree. For one, something that is between two objects isn't necessarily right between them in the strictest sense. For example, if you put your right hand all above your head, and your left hand under your head, then your head is still between your hands because the space that divides your hands is exactly referred to as between. This applies to the fact that if the Quran refers to semen, then it rightfully says that this is something that is gushed out from between the backbone and the ribs, because the abdomen is located in the space that directly divides the backbone and the ribs. Lastly, it is entirely wrong to apply 'between' as a mathematical term in this context, because we're not dealing with numbers, but approximate areas. Now to the rest. 2. Astronomy A: Setting of the sun Con asked me to prove that the hadith which he cited is inauthentic. I already said that I cannot find it in the hadith collections that are deemed as authentic, so I have definitely met my burden. In fact, it is Con who has to prove the authenticity of the hadith. He makes the claim, he has the burden of proof. Moving on, Con's response lacks sufficient factors for being sound, and here's why: My argument that the verse is completely based on the PoV of Dhul-Qarneyn: dropped. My claim that the sun does rise from an earthly perspective: dropped. The Quran using common expressions to make a point: dropped. No real arguments made by Con. Pure copy-paste. That being said, I will repeat my arguments from earlier: (1) Regardless of the wording of the verse, what matters is that the PoV is from a person, not God. Thus, there cannot possibly be an error because a perception is a mirrored reality. If I see the sun rising, then it is rising from my perspective, just like waving my right hand in the mirror seems to look like I am waving my left hand. (2) There's nothing wrong with the Quran using a common phrase to describe an event. As I said, if that verse was purely based in scientific wording, then it would sound gibberish and people wouldn't understand it for several centuries. Clearly, God would not want to reveal a book that His followers cannot understand. Moving on, Con used a dictionary to look up "wajada" and found out that it means "he found it, lighted on it," etc. None of this contradicts the definition I provided, which is "it appeared to." If I "find" something to be happening, the it "appears to" me as such. Moreover, Con doesn't seem to realize that it is impossible to translate the Quran decently into any language. It is the highest piece of Arabic literature ever seen, and to translate its poetic verses, idioms, etc., into any other language is simply not a possibility. So, this leaves me with saying that Con has in no way explained why this verse should mean anything like the sun literally setting. The possibilities are all the handful arguments I made. B: Sun and the moon Con has once again ignored my arguments. I quoted several Quranic verses which clearly state that all celestial bodies follow their own courses. The term 'courses' is used in plural form. "And He has made subject to you the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their courses; and the night and the day has he (also) made subject to you." (Q 14:33) Con quoted 36:40, and here's what the Quran says in verses before: (36:38): "And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing." (36:39): "And (as for) the moon, We have ordained for it stages till it becomes again as an old dry palm branch." In the verses prior to 40, the Quran clearly distinguishes between the paths of the sun and the moon. An error is impossible. Your turn Con. Hopefully original arguments this time. References [1] www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_on_semen_production_in_the_noble_quran__by_dr__munir_munshey [2] http://ga.water.usgs.gov... [3] http://vss.sd22.bc.ca...