the Qur'an holds more truth and is more advance in a sense than the bible.

Thanks for your swift response. 1) Pro has the advantage over me, as I do not speak or know Arabic. Still, I do not see that my critique (that is was a common belief that land arose from the water, etc.) has been refuted. 2) It may be that whoever wrote the Quran happened upon the idea that the universe was expanding steadily. The alternate explanation I ventured still seems viable, but even if wrong this could be mere coincidence. Given the other unscientific verses, it would not seem to prove much except that by coincidence the author was right. 3) "It is God Who sends the winds which stir up clouds which He spreads about the sky however He wills. He forms them into dark clumps and you see the rain come pouring out from the middle of them. When He makes it fall on those of His slaves He wills, they rejoice." Qu'ran, 30:48. Despite Pro's lengthy scientific explanation of it, I do not see that Surah Al Rum contains anything what a normal person would have observed about the rain (that winds stir up storm clouds, which spread in the sky, they are dark, and rain falls out. The author seems to believe that Allah makes it "fall on those of His slaves He wills" i.e. that every rain fall may be specifically planned. This is bad news for those of His believers living in areas with drought. "Have you not seen how God drives along the clouds, then joins them together, then makes them into a stack, and then you see the rain come out of it? And He sends down from the sky mountain masses (of clouds) with cold hail in them, striking with it anyone He wills and averting it from anyone He wills. The brightness of His lightning almost blinds the sight." (The Qur'an, 24:43) Again, despite Pro's long explanation of how cumulonimbus clouds form, it does not seem an explanation that a careful observer living in any time could not come up with, absent some kind of divine guidance. "By Heaven with its cyclical systems." Qu'ran, Surah Al-Tariq, 86:11. My translation reads: "By the heaven which giveth the returning rain", which seems to fit with Pro's. The examples given are in many cases factually wrong, obviously so, while others are less so but still not probative of divine intelligence over human in the Qu'ran's authorship. Pro does not source the verses in which the creation of human beings is shown. If he will, I would be glad to address them. However, as I cited in Surah Al Tariq 86:5-7, the author seems to think sperm is created in an organ "between the loins and the ribs." Pro does not answer it. While looking into Surah Al-Rum (The Romans) I found the following at verse 30:20 "And of His signs is this: He created you of dust, and behold you human beings, ranging widely!" So, what were human beings created from again? This leads into: 4) I wrote-Surah Al Muminun 23:12-14: "Verily We created man from a product of wet earth. Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a wet lodging. Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!" Is this what Pro refers to? This appears to be the same unscientific view that human beings are made from clay. Pro's reply: "CON is giving the time when the idea was created not the actual time when it was established and so therefore this argument is moot." I think he meant it as a response for 5) but he conceded it was wrong on that. If this is a response to 4) it makes no sense. 6) My translation is not very different from yours (Surah Al Noon 71:16): "And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?" Both the translations indicate the sun is like a lamp (obvious). On the moon it's less clear. 7) Pro adds another citation from Surah Al Alaq (The Clot). At the very beginning, 96:1-2 we find "In the name of thy Lord who Createth, Createth man from a clot." What were human beings created from again? On to Pro's verse: 96:15-16 "Nay, but if he cease not, we will seize him by the forelock-the lying, sinful forelock." Honestly, this seems the most out-there of Pro's arguments yet. That this somehow refers to the part of the brain *behind* the forelock instead of the "lying, sinful" *person* who is being *seized* by the forelock seems a huge stretch. The forelock, being "the part of a person's hairstyle which covers the forehead" is simply a convenient place to grab them by. http://en.wiktionary.org... You're welcome, but I don't see that you've answered the counter-examples yet. I look forward to it.