The Quran has no contradictions with Science

I largely concede on the first argument. Though there could concerns with the contridictive nature of there being seven heavens, I will not be supporting it, given the spiritual nature of the other heavens, and the inability of Con to refute it afterwords. Counter-Case I: The Barrier between Freshwater and Saltwater Con points out that Barzakh was the actual word in the arabic texts. Barzakh translates as "obstacle", "hindrance", "separation", or "barrier".{1} The Quran does in fact mention it as a spiritual place between life and death. However it is only used that way once in Quran 23.99-100. {2} In most examples it is given as a place name, which is treated differently from the actual definition. Certainly Greenland isn’t green, despite the name. Similarly a place named Barzakh may not fit it’s actual definition perfectly. That said, there are two cases where it’s describing the barrier between fresh and saltwater, {3/4} both of which use strong language, implying a more definitive definition. Con then lists a single type of Estuary. In reality there are several kinds of estuaries, most of which have far larger regions of brackish water rather than thin layers, including Vertically Homogeneous and Partially Stratified Estuaries. {5} The fact that we technically call it a separate ecosystem is irrelevant. It’s simply for clarification. The estuary, regardless of what we determine it to be, is a mixing point between Freshwater and Saltwater rather the a barrier. Summarization - It is technically open to interpretation, however it is in reference to a scientific fact, thus we have no reason to change the interpretation to an informal definition only used once in a religious situation (exactly not spiritual). -Con accepts that estuary is not a barrier where salt is forbidden to pass. - The informal definition is only used once, and many translations show it as a place name rather then a descriptive noun. Occams Razor says we must assume it is using it’s legitimate definition rather then assuming it is using a definition being used to show something spiritual as opposed to this scientific statement. 1] http://en.wikipedia.org... 2] http://quran.com... 3] http://quran.com... 4] http://quran.com... 5] http://en.wikipedia.org... Counter-Case II: Sexual Reproduction Con tries again to give a different translation. One can’t simply explain away all inconsistencies as the translators not doing their job right. Numerous professional translators have looked over the word and chose that specific definition, and many if not the vast majority of scholars accept the definition. In this case, “Blood Clot”. We can’t just assume they are all wrong because the passage suddenly seems to be wrong. Con tells us though that these professionals all chose the wrong word, and that it actually has a definition which is has no similarity to the definition the translators chose ose. Con says they would have used the word “damm”, except language doesn’t always work that way. Just because a blood-clot involves blood doesn’t mean that name they used for it must have the word blood in it. To say that it is an invalid translation because “blood” is not directly used it simply arguing sematics. Con in the next example accepts the translation about bone forming first. Con ignores that the issue with the Qurans description was that it claims the flesh forms after the bones. Even the most lenient definition of the two will have bone and flesh forming at the same time, {5} whereas stricter definitions will have the flesh developed before the cartilage becomes bone. That is important as cartilage is not bone. They are quite distinct. Yes the cartilage becomes bone, but until then, it is not bone. {6} I end by fogiving my opponent for not responding to the first verse, given the small character limits. Up until this point the arguments have been short so I wasn’t aware of the character limit. Finishing Statement: That being said, remember Con's argument is built on an absolute, and as such if the voter determines that any part of my cases still stands, or gives noticable doubt to the scientific validity of the Quran's verses, he should vote Pro. 5] http://www.scienceclarified.com... 6] http://www.majordifferences.com...==Unitomic==