quran is right in terms of science

Thanks to my opponent for their rebuttal. However, I am not sure you really addressed the question as you gave a lot of definitions, but did not address the Koranic verses which are clearly saying something else.Again I want to address what my opponent again says "WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT MOUNTAINS PREVENT EARTH QUAKE...PLZ BE SURE BEFORE STATING WRONG ABOUT QURAN". I am not sure how my opponent can say that the Koran does not mention mountains are preventing earthquakes when he states the following in his arguments.(a) However, the process of formation of such downward extensions as well as their role in halting the sudden, jerky movements of the planet and of its lithospheric plates have only begun to be understood in the framework of modern astronomy and of the very recent concept of plate tectonics (b) The precedence of the Glorious Qur"an with more than 14 centuries in describing mountains as pegs (or pickets) and in defining their main role as stabilizers for the Earth, lest it should shake with us is a clear testimony that the Qur"an is the work of the CreatorI believe both points (a) and (b) which are direct quotes of my opponent are simple ways of saying that mountains stop the shaking of the earth. This also states that mountains act as stabilizers against the shaking of the earth. Shaking of the earth implies earthquake or as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary as "a shaking of a part of the earth's surface that often causes great damage".(1) In effect my opponent is countering his statement that the Koran does not say mountains prevent earthquakes, by saying that mountains prevent earthquakes. This is not taking the Koran out of context this is stating exactly what my opponents says the Koran states. I think I have proved here that the Koran is unscientific and have won this debate. However, let me address the other point my opponent has given in his rebuttal.My opponent has stated that "The term "picket" or "peg" which is used by the Glorious Qur"an to describe mountains, is both literally and scientifically more precise than the term "root" which is currently used to describe the hidden, downward extension of mountains". I am not sure why my opponent is saying this, as I did not use the word root in my statement. A such I am not sure what he is addressing. Let me remind my opponent what I actually said: In this way these mountains would look like pegs, but this is just a descriptive way of explaining this depth that mountains extend. Also this implies that pegs are placed in the Earth (or mountains are placed in the Earth) which is not how mountains are formed. Or according to the Koran Surah 78: 6-7 "Have We not made the earth an expanse, And the high hills bulwarks?"(2) However, I am not sure if this makes a difference if we call it root, peg or picket as my argument stands regardless of what word is used. What is really interesting with respect to the argument my opponent makes that the Koran predicted the "pegs" of mountains 1400 years (see point (b) above) before scientists found out that mountains extend deep into the surface. Why was this knowledge only available from the Koran once the scientists had already published this information. Is it because the Islamic scholars go back after discoveries have been made and try make verses fit?(3) Also, maybe my opponent wants to explain why the Koran is more scientific than the Hindu scripture which says the exact same things about mountains as pegs. "Sabita made this Earth fixed by different devices (like hills and mountains) and sustains sky without pillars so that it does not move"(4) Additionally, this text existed a long time before the Koran was even prophesied by Muhammad.I hand the debate back to my opponent.(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) http://www.scienceislam.com...(3) http://www.answering-islam.org...(4) http://www.faithfreedom.org...