There exists a scientific miracle in the Qur'an

To win the debate, Pro has to offer one scientific miracle in the Qur'an supported with evidence beyond preponderance. He has not done this so for. Scientific miracle: Accurate scientific knowledge revealed in the Qur'anic verses even though it was not present in that age. [Agreed-upon definition]Scientific knowledge: Knowledge accumulated by systematic study and organized by general principles[1].Pro offered us instead the traditional "Pharaoh hoax" that was created by Islamist miracle-seekers to convince Christians of converting to Islam. It's only meant to work on Christians because of its first premise that considers the Pharaoh’s story in Exodus a historic fact and a starting point. As an agnostic atheist, I don't see a good reason to accept what is written in the Bible, so such argument inherently fails to convince me as it relies on a biblical account. Pro's argument can be summarized as follows... P1- The story in Exodus in which a Pharaoh drowns is a historic fact. [Baseless assertion]P2- The Qur'an speaks of the same Pharaoh and tells us that his body was preserved. P3- That pharaoh is Merneptah.[Baseless assertion - Controversial point] P4- Dr. Maurice Bucaille proved that Merneptah drowned, when he studied the mummy. [False premise]P5- The Qur'an can not have included this if it was not revealed by God, given that the body-preservation information is not found in the Bible. [Non-Sequitur logical fallacy] Conclusion: Therefore, the Qur'an contains a miracle. I only need to refute one premise to demolish the whole argument. However, I'm going to show all the problems and fabrications in my opponent's argument. Note: I’m considering this a scientific miracle-claim when it's more of a historic miracle-claim, to be exact. However, I don't want to struggle with petty semantics.... P1-The story in Exodus in which a Pharaoh drowns is a historic fact. This might be accepted by some Christians, but definitely not by me. Unless Pro can prove that God drowned the pharaoh as the Qur’an and Bible say (and with overwhelming evidence), I see no good reason to accept premise 1. Hence, this is a baseless assertion that can't be used as a premise. P2- The Qur'an speaks of the same Pharaoh and tells us that his body was preserved. I have no objections to that particular premise, given that the two stories are similar. However, I would like to note that the Qur’an never mentions the Pharaoh’s name and doesn’t give any accurate dates of when the event happened. P3- That pharaoh is Merneptah. Pro has not offered us any evidence to prove that the drowned pharaoh is Mernepath. Many believers claim Ramses II was the drowned Pharaoh, including Muslims[2]. I haven't been provided any good evidence or reasons to accept that this is Mernepath, not Ramses II or another pharaoh. In summary, this remains a baseless assertion and a controversial point. P4- Dr. Maurice Bucaille proved that Merneptah drowned, when he studied the mummy.For a scientist to be taken seriously, he needs to have his research peer-reviewed and accepted among the scientific community. Pro has to prove that such a research is peer-reviewed and accepted.It is quite shocking that Pro uses Dr. Bucaille as a credible scientist when he was the obedient scientist of King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, an Islamic, filthy-rich monarch. I shall use Dr. Bucaille's actual “scientific” study to show how absurd and embarrassing it is for a scientist. Dr. Maurice Bucaille says, "An excellent radiographic study was made by Doctors El Meligy and Ramsiys, and the examination of the interior of the thorax, through a gap in the thoracic wall, was carried out by Doctor Mustapha Manialawiy What may already be derived from this examination is the discovery of multiple lesions of the bones with broad lacunae, some of which may have been mortal although it is not yet possible to ascertain whether some of them occurred before or after the Pharaoh's death. He most probably died either from drowning, according to the Scriptural narrations, or from very violent shocks preceding the moment when he was drowned-or both at once."I vote this to be the non-sequitur fallacy of the day...Non sequitur: An argument whose conclusion does not follow from its premises[3]. You don't have to be a specialist in forensics to realize that having lesions doesn't in any way prove that someone drowned. There is no way in logic where Dr. Bucaille's conclusion can follow the premises he offered. This is a textbook example of a non-sequitur. A great review of the work with an emphasis on this point was written In a New York Times in 1991 by Malcolm Brown, a science reporter[4]: "... Dr. Bucaille asserts that results of a forensic examination of Merneptah's mummy are consistent with the biblical account of the pharaoh's death, in which the Red Sea, miraculously parted for the Hebrews, closes over the Egyptians. The author does not make it quite clear how a surge of water would produce the massive cranial trauma evident in the mummy, but never mind. This is but one of many questions the author leaves hanging. ...While Dr. Bucaille makes a good case that the royal mummies have been persistently ill used ever since their discovery, too much of his book is devoted to petulant criticism of Egyptologists and museum officials, notably Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt, director of Egyptian antiquities at the Louvre. Dr. Bucaille's feuds leave little room for the mummies; his book badly needs rehabilitation by a professional writer or editor. " This is yet another confirmation that Dr. Bucaile never proves that the pharaoh drowned. In summary, P4 is not based on a peer-reviewed and professional, scientific work. I see no good reason to accept the premise. P5- The Qur'an can not have included this if it was not revealed by God, given that the body-preservation information is not found in the Bible. Even if we grant all the premises above, this doesn’t leave out the possibility that the body’s preservation was orally-transmitted through sources other than Mohammad’s encounter with the Angel Gabriel. I don’t see how the absence of body-preservation from the Bible gives any Muslim the confidence to conclude that such information could have only be revealed by Allah. There could be other possibilities of how Mohammad got such information. An example of those would be through a story orally-transmitted, provided that there were people who preserved the body and could have carried the story along. The assertion that this could only be revealed by Allah is logically fallacious, provided that we are talking about a historic event and claiming there were eye witnesses who preserved the body or even have known the tomb after the body was preserved. The conclusion that this must have been revealed by Allah doesn't follow its premises and hence is a Non-Sequitur logical fallacy. ... Pro doesn't have a chance in this debate, given that I gave four refutations that completely demolished his miracle-claim. It is important to note that I only need one of those refutations to win the debate. In summary, Pro's argument is severely flawed given that (1) Premise 1 is only a Bibical assumption a Christian might accept, (2) Pro doesn't prove that the Pharoah in the scritpure is Merneptah, (3) Dr. Bucaille doesn't prove Mernepath drowned , (4) Pro commits a Non-sequitur in P4 when he says that since this information is not in the Bible, Allah must have revealed it. [1] thefreedictionary.com/scientific+knowledge[2] islamiclandmarks.com/egypt/body_of_firawn.html[3] princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Non_sequitur_(logic).html[4] nytimes.com/1991/02/03/books/all-wrapped-up-in-his-work.html‎