The Quran has no contradictions with Science

You’ve bombarded me with many examples that are under one big umbrella (Sexual Reproduction). I will try to answer all of them, but please excuse me if I couldn’t answer all of them. I will start with verse 96:02 The translation you’re quoting from mentions a clot of congealed blood. Again, I don’t blame the translator because one of the word’s metaphoric meanings is congealed blood and this has been under debate between Arab linguists for centuries. They proposed many different interpretations for “Alaq” and only one of them is congealed blood. I have to go deep explaining “Alaq” to clear things up. “Alaq” originates from the verb “Alaqa” (Meaning: to suspend and stick to something). So the verse can be technically translated in the following: Created man out of a substance that sticks and suspends. So what does that mean? Sticks to what and suspends from what? The answer is so obvious: That substance sticks and hangs on to the womb. But hold on!! There’s another use of the word “Alaq”. It’s used to name a sucking worm called a “leech” in English. What’s amazing to me is that the human embryo resembles very much a leech. To see the resemblance, please refer to this link: http://islampapers.com... Even if you don’t see the resemblance (because sighting resemblance is a subjective matter), it’s not a big deal, because the embryo at this stage does exactly what a leech does: Exploiting the habitat to feed and grow. So there's your full interpretation of "Alaq": a leech like thing that adheres and suspends from the womb. Finally, blood in Arabic is “Damm”. It is mentioned numerous times in the Quran in other verses. If the Quran wanted to say blood in this verse, it would’ve said it loud and clear because there aren’t any commonly used synonyms for blood. Now let’s move on to the next example: You claim that science says the flesh develops before the bones. While the Quran clearly says: “We have covered the bones with flesh” indicating that bones came first and then flesh comes after. First, the Quran really does make that claim and I don’t disagree at all. There’s no other interpretation whatsoever. Second, you said (and I quote): “we know very well that Flesh developes before the bone… Bones become developed (though still palpable) by the 26th week “. Your source for this claim was a Wikipedia article on the fetus (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I went and looked at the source to check if the bones really develop by the 26th week, and I found the following statement under the title “Weeks 26 to 38”: Bones are fully developed, but are still soft and pliable. My friend, you have dropped a very important word while quoting from the source and that word is “FULLY”. Between weeks 26 to 38, bones become FULLY developed, not start to develop like you tried to frame it. Bones can develop at a very early stage and then at a later stage become "FULLY" developed. Do you see where I'm getting? This source does not mention the beginning of bone development and whether flesh came before or after. Bones develop much earlier than that, before the flesh forms for sure. Do you know why? Let’s first define flesh. Flesh according to a dictionary is the muscles and fat between the bones and the skin. The key thing here is the muscles. Muscles cannot exist without bones. Otherwise, what would muscles be attached to? This is a very important question. Muscles are attached to bones through an intermediary string called a tendon. Muscles are attached to tendons and tendons are attached to the bones. Muscles are not attached to each other in a large network of muscles. each muscle is attached to two bones or more, and that’s it. So it’s impossible to imagine a being with muscles but no bones. In that case, muscles will float around and could mix since they’re not attached to any solid. But hey!! Don’t listen to me. Listen to Dr. Kieth L. Moore, a well known Canadian professor emeritus in the division of anatomy. He says that bones develop first and then muscles form around the bones. You can hear him talk in this youtube video In his book, The Developing Human, he says: "The shape of the skeleton determines the general appearance of the embryo in the bones stage during the 7th week; muscles do not develop at the same time but their development follows soon after" I’d like to mention one more thing that might make everything clear. Bones of the fetus are called cartilages when they first form. It takes time for them to ossify and become bones in the way we normally know them.This ossifying process will complete after the muscles are formed. Maybe that’s where the confusion arises: on a labelling technicality. I hope I made myself clear in defending my claim. I ask my opponent to forgive me for not replying to the first verse he mentioned. I ran out of characters. I hope he forgives me because I managed to defend two examples instead of one like we agreed. Peace