The Qur'an is not the word of God, it contains too many scientific mistakes.

Hello there, Is it me or did you completely dodge almost every question i asked? This reply is really missing lots of things i asked and you did not bother to reply to any. Please go back and reply part by part to what i presented, i asked alot of questions and i got zero answers especially on my first example. "If it is as clear as you say, then, why is it that the person from the source says "There are several instances of this in the Quran that the word thumma is not necessarily used to show the chronological order but it is also used for the order of Presentation."?http://www.islamicstudies.info......"He only gave one example which is nonsense, he gave this ayah: "He created you from one soul. Then He made from it its mate, and He produced for you from the grazing livestock eight mates. He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, within three darknesses. That is Allah , your Lord; to Him belongs dominion. There is no deity except Him, so how are you averted? 39:6" He is trying to use this Ayah to prove nothing really. He says here that is talking about Adam and Eve. How? I have no idea. What the person from the source is trying to claim is that the word "Soul" here refers to Eve, thus "Zawjeha" or "Mate" refers to Adam somehow. All i can say is that this is very deceptive, he is saying nonesense to people who don't understand Arabic to simply try to justify this mistake. I'll go through the trouble of proving this nonesense. The Ayah says, He created you from "Nafsen waheda" which means the soul and its feminine. The soul has a mate or pair (zawjeha) which is masculine. The person in your site is deceiving people into thinking this means Adam and Eve which is a complete lie. He is simply playing with words to people not familiar with Arabic to try and justify the Qur'an's mistake, knowing that the faithful will not doubt or react to his words with skepticism. He is deceptive and straight out lying. Now please go back to what i've posted in round 3 and reply to it thoroughly. Your reply is insuffecient. Another thing to add as well is a picture that really explains this Ayah perfectly. http://1.bp.blogspot.com...This picture is really worth a thousand words. First, it is in concordance with the verse i presented "We adorned the lowest heaven with lamps" Which is true if the universe looks like this. Second, There is another Ayah that says, "Do you not see how God has created the seven heavens one above the other, and made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a lamp? 71:15-16"Simply put the Qur'an supports the geocentric universe. The earth and heavens are two seperate entities, not knowing that the earth is part of the universe and that the earth is completely insignificant in the vasteness of the universe. Not once has the Qur'an ever mentioned that the Sun is a star. Not once has the Qur'an ever mentioned that the earth is a planet like the other planets. Not once has the Qur'an mentioned that the Earth orbits anything. On the other hand we find the Qur'an clearly saying that the Earth was created first in 4 days, then the heavens or the universe created in two days and raised it without pillars. How can an omniscient God make such a mistake? How can the creator of the universe even try to emphasize in the simplest of ways that the Earth did not take as twice time to create as the universe? Simply because it is not God who wrote this book, but 7th century Arabs who put their understanding of the universe at that time and how they thought it came to being.By the way this is from your site "But the fact is that nowhere in the Quran has the mention of the creation of the universe been made to teach Physics or Astronomy, but while inviting towards belief in the doctrines to Tauhid and the Hereafter." Is it me or is this simply a cop out? He can't really find any excuse to this verse and he answers with something completely irrelevant? If it is to teach us about Monotheism then atleast it should've been in concordance to what really happened and not be completely wrong. These are supposedly the words of an omniscient God after all. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'I already gave you those answers in the first round. I included the discussion about antibodies. I'll bold the area. Nabil Haroun says "Millions of animal species discovered, classified and investigated only during the last two centuries, were found to be invariably in 'pairs,' male and female. Electron microscopy has clarified that all living creatures, however minute, are in pairs. The smallest microbes, viruses, and bacteria have their counterpart antibodies."http://www.onislam.net...;This argument completely contradicts itself. It says first that during the last two centuries, species were discovered to inveriably in pairs "male and female". Then it goes to say that the counterparts or viruses and bacteria are antibodies. This is astonishing to be honest. This is plain ignorance, antibodies are not counterparts of bacteria and viruses. Antibodies kill bacteria and viruses. Antibodies are not the "male or female" counterpart of the bacteria or a virus. Antibodies are proteins, they are a molecule, they are non-living. How can you claim that a non-living thing has a counterpart of a living cell? Or claiming that the bacteria is a male and the antibody is a female or vice versa? how does that make any sense?If i find a bone or a piece of plastic, does that make it my counterpart? This is very silly to be honest. There is no male or female in many species of bacteria and viruses. They exist solely as ONE. No counterpart. NO PAIR. "This is not circular. I wasn't trying to prove the Virgin Birth of Mary. I'll explain. You talked about sharks and their "virgin birth." I talked about Mary (pbuh) to show that religion talks about everything have a pair as well as the virgin birth of Mary. That doesn't mean Mary didn't have a pair. Single people still have pairs in some way, shape, or form. Even if the shark had a "virgin birth," that doesn't take away the fact that there are male sharks out there. The pair for female sharks are the male sharks. They don't have to copulate in order to establish the pair. The pair simply exists. "First Mary got impregnanted by the spirit of God, Gabriel or Jibreel. "And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel, and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient. 69:12" So Mary actually needed a pair. She did not get pregnant without a "pair". That pair however is Gabriel. So the Virgin birth of Jesus is not really an example to be used. Since still Mary needed a counterpart. Second, i was using the shark as only an example for an illustration of parthenogenesis. There exists entire species such as the whiptail lizard which does not have any males. They clone themselves over and over. Another very good example is the blind snake (Ramphotyphlops braminus) which no male has ever been found and it is surviving very well. This is because they are parthenogenic creatures and requires no counterpart. Now please reply thoroughly to my first example arguments in round 3. You totally avoided it and dodged all the major questions asked. Now please go over them.Thank you.