There exists a scientific miracle in the Qur'an

I apologize to the readers for my opponent's lack of intellectual honesty, refined manners and debating etiquette. In my final round, I shall simply defend myself against the sludges of distortions and baseless accusations that were directed against me. It is important to note that I have already won the debate in Round 2, but continued out of courtesy to refute my opponent's claims.I presented this rule/condition in my opening statement...R4- Pro has to only provide one scientific miracle in the Qur'an.I also wrote in my opening statement, "That is to say, my opponent has to provide only one scientific miracle in the Qur'an, and I have to disprove it effectively." Pro in Round 1:"I would have posted my argument 2 days ago, but choices were so much I was not able to select which one I should bring forth!As Con Claimed "ONLY ONE" Statement of Quran which is supported by evidence beyond preponderance, and a Statement which has no other source at the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) & was discovered recently with the Help of Modern Knowledge of Science!"Pro agreed with me that he has to offer ONLY ONE miracle-claim, and he did offer the Pharaoh miracle-claim in the first round, confessing that he was confused which one to choose.Pro in Round 3:"No where in these statements make it Obligatory on me that My Argument should only be Restricted to 1 Claim only!" "There is nothing as such stated in R4 that I am "restricted to state only one Claim! and not allowed to write down more than one" Hence this deception should be Strictly taken into consideration to understand Con's Psychology! and His assumption that I broke any rule should be Ignored! It can be seen that Pro's main aim is to Win the voters by Hook or by Crook thus He is trying to deceive with even simplest English! so his lecture on what I did should be ignored to establish Justice according to debate Rules!"---This accusation just backfired on my opponent, because such distortion is probably going to cost him a seven-point loss. Let me repeat the rule and its explanation in my opening statement...R4- Pro has to only provide one scientific miracle in the Qur'an.I wrote in my opening statement, "That is to say, my opponent has to provide only one scientific miracle in the Qur'an, and I have to disprove it effectively." Either I'm hallucinating or my opponent is intentionally lying to the readers.... Because he seems to be changing stories.---Now please, allow me to continue burying my opponent in his hole.1- The Expanding universe miracle-claimPro claims... "The Arabic Word used by Allah is MOUSI'OONA (موسعون expanding) in 51:47, which is a verb of the noun WAASI'A (واسع vast)."Almost everything in this definition is false. The Qur'an doesn't use "Mousi'oona." It's "Al-Mousi'ona." The difference is that the "Al-" prefix in Arabic is the equivalent of saying "The"[1]. Moreover, the "Al-" can't possibly come before verbs as one should believe to side with Pro[2]. Pro claims that it does come before a verb, when that is utterly false and grammatically incorrect. Notice the last word in the verse above. It doesn't say "موسعون" as my opponent claims. It says "لموسعون" and this is because in such a grammatical position "Al-Mousi'ona" loses its first letter (the A) and becomes "L-Mousi'ona." Even though it changes it is considered to be a variation of the original which is "Al-Mousi'ona" but with a shortened prefix.Needless to say, the Qur'an uses the *noun* which means "expanders".Pro then translates "Wassi'a" to "Vast" and claims it is a noun (although it is obviously an adjective to every English and Arabic speaker). This brings into perspective my opponent's knowledge of the English and Arabic languages.2- The Moon-light miracle in the Qur'anPro has not proven that 'Mouneer" means "reflected light." Pro's response(with graphics) was that it means "light" and claimed that I lied when I said it doesn't mean 'reflected light.' This is a non-sequitur fallacy. How does "light" mean "reflected light?" Moreover, we have already established that "Mouneer" is commonly used on objects that emit light such as lanterns and light-bulbs. Why can't we assume the same on the moon? 3- The Sun-Moon orbit miracle in the Qur'anPro's response was that my sources didn't say planets and stars revolved around orbits. This is false. Babylonian Astronomy(almost 1200 years before Mohammad) described planetary movement and the sun's declination circles(aka circular orbits)[3]. Hipparchus (ca. 190 – 120 BC) described with precision the elliptical orbits of the moon and the sun and was very close to our present scientific knowledge, especially in his description of lunar and solar cycles[4]. Pro completely ignored the sources.4- Clinging Embryo Miracle in the Qur'an[Pro here concedes with me this is not a miracle.]5- How did the Prophet plagiarize one hundred accurate myths?A hundred accurate one? Pro claims that is "out of the scope of the debate" for me to offer the inaccurate myths, and yet makes the baseless assertion that there are 100 accurate myths in the Qur'an. In his words, "its very logical a person can never Plagiarized 100s of Statements from 100s of Myths 100% and Everytime Choose the Correct One!"Pro has not proved any of the 100 to be true in this debate. Why should we believe there are one hundred myths that are correct?6- How did the Prophet access the already-present information? Pro treated this as an unanswered question when I clearly answered beforehand and even provided a deductive argument for my position.P1- If Muhammad had access to the information in the Qur'an, then there is a sufficient reason to reject any supernatural proposals.P2- Muhammad did have access to the information in the Qur'an. [Point of agreement]Conclusion: Therefore, there is a sufficient reason to reject any supernatural proposals.Pro has not even attempted to refute this. The underlying assumption is that it is more probable for Mohammad to get the information through foreign scholars/travelers/translated books/educated companions/cultural diffusion than it is for an Allah to exist and reveal such information to a merchant in a cave. What part of this doesn't my opponent understand?Was the Prophet illiterate? Pro has not offered us one peer-reviewed, historic citation on Mohammad's illiteracy, but a weak citation on "all non-Muslim scholars" that took me to Islamicawakening.com(a non-trusted source). Truth of the matter, Muslims publicly claim that they think Mohammad is illiterate because of Qur'anic sources[5]. I think I made it clear that I don't accept such accounts as historic facts....---Pro has not fulfilled his BoP in providing a scientific miracle with evidence beyond preponderance. I've already won the debate in Round 2, where I demolished my opponent's Pharaoh miracle-claim with four refutations and classified it as a Hoax. That forced Pro to Gish Gallop and present four other ones (in violation of R4).Pro clearly violated the accepted and terms and conditions of this debate, even when I specified that he would be penalized by voters for such violations.---Before I forget, I shall remind the reader of R2...R2- Opponent can only say "As agreed" in the last round, so that I can respond to everything he/she presents.I'm only saying that again so that Pro is discouraged from doing what he did to R4.I thank everyone who read this long debate to the very end. ---[1] Lambert, W. G.; Reiner, Erica (1987). "Babylonian Planetary Omens..."[2] Lucio Russo, The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had To Be Reborn, (Berlin: Springer, 2004)[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-[4] Arabic for dummies, page 36. [5] submission.org/Claim_of_Muhammads_illiteracy.html