There exists a scientific miracle in the Qur'an

After I provided four refutations for his argument , Pro used the "Gish Gallop" strategy to provide FOUR OTHER miracle-claims, whereby violating the rules and regulations of this debate.R4- Pro has to only provide one scientific miracle in the Qur'an.R7- Both Pro and Con should follow the rules and definitions presented here, or else they are penalized by the voters.I take it that Pro automatically loses his Conduct point for violating the rules, and his Arguments' points for abandoning his main argument altogether.Gish Galloping: The debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths and falsehoods that the opponent cannot possibly refute everything[1].I included R4 in my opening statement to avoid having my opponent going into that many diversions. Unfortunately, Pro turned out to be someone who violates the accepted terms and conditions to convince himself that he lost the debate due to such violations, and not because he is utterly wrong about almost everything.The topic clearly says, "There exists a scientific miracle in the Qur'an." This doesn't at all encompass whether the Qur'an itself is a miracle. Hence, Pro's new main argument is a red herring.If you are reading only to vote, then you should read no further. I have already won the debate in Round 2 where I demolished Pro's main argument, the "Pharaoh hoax." If you are reading out of interest and would like see my refutations, then continue reading.The points below are not there to win me the debate; I have already won. I'm only presenting them because I'm not accustomed to avoid challenges. I'll try to address the general arguments my opponent makes with a prior knowledge that I won't be able to refute every falsehood.It is important to note that all the FOUR miracle-claims that my opponent offered can be used in Logic 101 as examples of the Texas Sharpshooter logical fallacy.Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: A logical fallacy in which pieces of information that have no relationship to one another[e.g Qur'anic verse and a scientific theory] are called out for their similarities, and that similarity is used for claiming the existence of a pattern[e.g Scientific Miraculousness of the Qur'an].[2]1- The Moon-light miracle in the Qur'anPro's essential premise is the following...The Word Used in Quran for Sun is Always: Siraj; Wahaj; Shams etc. But for Moon It always used: Munier (reflected Light) Noor (a Light) (Luminosity) and Qamar etc. Muneir doesn't meen reflected light at all.; It is actually an adjective used on objects that emit light. A common phrase in Arabic is "Musba7 Moneir" which translates to "Light-emitting lantern." In Arabic, "Musba7 Moneir" is written as "مصباح منير" and this term could be found in many articles and poems. For instance, this is an excerpt from an Arabic poem posted in Al Arabi Magazine[3]. كويت المجد مصباح منير أضاء بنوره لجج السوادThis translates to "Kuwait's glory is a light-emitting lantern lighting with its light the cluttered layers of darkness." As a native Arabic speaker, I've never seen "Moneir" used to imply that an object reflects light. I take this as a fabrication on Pro's behalf.2- The Celestial Movement miracle in the Qur'anThis doesn't even qualify as a scientific miracle because such information was known hundreds, if not thousands of years before Mohammad was born. Babylonian Astronomy(almost 1200 years before Mohammad) described planetary movement and the sun's declination circles and movement[4]. Furthermore, Hipparchus (ca. 190 – 120 BC) described with precision the movement of the moon and the sun around the earth and was very close to our present scientific knowledge[5].Ergo, this is not a scientific miracle to begin with.Pro uses a miracle-seeker's lecture as a citation for his claim that "until 1980s it was believed that Sun is Stationary." I find that laughable. Many ancient cultures such as Babylonians assumed that the Sun moved around the Earth.3- The expanding universe scientific miracleThe universe in Arabic was referred to with "Samawaat" which means "Skies". However, the actual sky was called "Sama" in the singular form of the word. The verse my opponent provides doesn't say that "we are the expanders of the Samawaat." It says, "we are the expanders of the Sama." Moreover, the word "expanders" in Arabic is not given a purely present sense as my opponent suggests. It can both refer to a past event, as in "we expanded once" or to a present event as in "we are expanding currently." I have no good reason to choose the second interpretation.4- Clinging embryo miracle in the Qur'anAll what my opponent treated as "revealed knowledge" was already described and stated by others before Mohammad. The Jewish Talmud and Ancient Greek describe the Clinging-like embryo before the Qur'an."Rabbi Papa replied: From this it may be inferred that the embryo clings to the sandal at the middle of the latter which lies across the head of the former." [6]Galen also speaks of this clinging ability, which means that such knowledge was known by both the Jews and the Greek:“Since the fetus cannot yet either eat or drink, the matter of the mother, that in her veins, is its natural nutriment. It was necessary; therefore, that the fetus adheres to the mother, as the seed of the plant must adhere to the earth.”[7]Pro then argues, "Quran says Sperms becomes a Leech like & is clinging!" This is false. Sperms never evolve into leech-like structures. Fetuses do. This just gives me a good idea on my opponent's understanding of embryology.5- How can Mohammad choose the right myths?The "miracles" presented here were meticulously chosen by Muslims because they were based on ancient myths that were scientifically accurate. That's why Muslims use them while avoiding the myths of the Qur'an that turned out to be scientifically false. Examples of those are semen production, Lucretius' cosmological theories, mountain's role in stopping earthquakes, etc.6- How can Mohammad know all this knowledge?We have no way of determining if Mohammad was illiterate or not. His illiteracy is a baseless assertion made by some Muslim. What we can determine, however, is the fact that natural explanations remain less improbable than supernatural explanations.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.Conclusion: Therefore, there is a sufficient reason to reject any supernatural proposals.The Evidence for P2 could ONLY be the existence of such information. If they exist, then it is less probable for a metaphysical entity to convey them to Mohammad than him getting access to them somehow. However, P2 is supported with more than that: Meccah which was full of travelling merchants and scholars, Mohammad's educated companions, cultural diffusion, etc.7- Refutation of Pro's probability argumentThis is one of the most hilarious arguments on DDO.P1- Probability that a sample of 10 myths are all true is very low. [Limited sampling fallacy]P2- Qur'an has 100 myths that are actually right. [Baseless assertion - Pro has to prove all those]Conclusion: "THAT PROVES QURAN IS SCIENTIFICALLY A MIRACLE." [Conclusion doesn't follow premises - How is it scientific?]...Pro has failed to defend his previous main argument, and instead listed well-refuted miracle-claims and arguments with weak citations from Islamicaawakening.com. I've refuted all the miracle-claims and arguments he added, although I have already won the debate.[1] rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop[2] Bennett, Bo (2010). Logically Fallacious.[3] alarabimag.com/Article.asp?ART=593&ID=20[4] Lambert, W. G.; Reiner, Erica (1987). "Babylonian Planetary Omens..."[5] Lucio Russo, The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had To Be Reborn, (Berlin: Springer, 2004)[6] Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah. Folio 26a[7] Galen, On Semen by Galen; Phillip De Lacy