There exists at least one scientific flaw in the Qur'an

Con has failed to refute my arguments, but instead made huge claims without any citations from scientific or peer-reviewed articles(see below). Most of his responses are simply nonscientific and unsupported.1- Semen ProductionMy opponent provided a schematic chart and claimed that the seminal vesicle is between the backbone and the rib-cage, even when the rib-cage was not even included in the chart he used. I take it that he is not a biology major.I'm going to use a justified argument from authority by quoting John Locke on AllExperts.com's Biology section. John Locke is a Biology teacher with a BS in Bioengineering, and he says the following about this topic:"The seminal vesicles are located behind the male bladder, which (as is the female bladder) is located in the pelvic cavity. The upper and lower borders of the pelvic cavity are the pelvic inlet (the bottom of the pelvis) and the pelvic outlet (the top of the pelvis). This lies below the rib cage, and indeed entirely below the spinal column. As such, the seminal vesicles cannot be said to lie between the ribs and spine. They do not lie between the ribs and the spine. "[1]The following diagram of the human anatomy proves John Locke right. Diagram was retrieved from Augustatech.edu[2].This shows that the Pelvic cavity, which contains the seminal vesicles, is no where between the backbone and the rib-cage as my opponent claims. Thus, I second my accusation that what he used was a total fabrication and a pseudoscientific claim.Hence, even if we follow my opponent's interpretation of this Qur'anic verse as opposed to Ibn Kathir, there is still a major scientific flaw in the Qur'an. Semen doesn't gush forth from that location, and if we argued that it's not semen but the secretion of the seminal vesicles, then even the semincal vesicles are not found between the backbone and the ribs.2- Earthquakes and MountainsAgain, my opponent fails to give us one well-supported, scientific claim that proves what the Qur'an says. However, this time, my opponent contradicts his own translation to suit his position.According to the translation my opponent offered, "And We placed within the earth firmly set mountains, lest it should shift with them, and We made therein [mountain] passes [as] roads that they might be guided. (Quran 21:31)"Then my opponent claims, "The verb is on the mountain. The Quran never made the claim that mountains prevent exterior sources of quakes or shaking." This is obviously untrue. "Mountains" is plural so the verse used "them" for that term and the "Earth" is singular so the verse used "it" for that term. The verse could be rewritten as, "And We placed within the earth firmly set mountains, lest it[The earth] should shift with them[The Mountains]." In the original Arabic version, "Tameed Bihom" was used and it literally translates to "Sway with them," given that "Bihom" in Arabic can only be used for plural terms. I'm a native Arabic speaker, which makes me get offended whenever someone tries to pull such a trick on me. I'm going to post the exact verse in Arabic as evidence for my interpretation. Yet even if I were to accept my opponent's wrong interpretation, he has not offered one citation from a scientific or peer-reviewed article claiming that mountain-roots stop the mountains from quaking.- -Con has not refuted any of my two arguments. In the first one, he used a pseudoscientific claim which I proved wrong using a well-referenced diagram and an expert's testimony. In the second one, I showed that my opponent was using an interpretation which carried across a very different meaning than the original verse, and even his interpretation was based on an unsupported claim which he didn't back up with any scientific or peer-reviewed paper.[1] en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/2010/7/Loins-ribs-fluid.htm[2] augustatech.edu/anatomy/chapter 1.html