There exists a scientific miracle in the Qur'an [#2]

Pro didn't apologize for violating DDO standards by plagiarism and the obligatory regulations by providing more than one miracle-claim, but instead shamelessly declared the following...Pro remarked, "I am not SUBJECTED to anyone's rule or rules (but only, God's rules). I am higher than and more honorable any man-made rule."Rebuttal: So acts of plagiarism and intellectual-theft are honorable and encouraged in Allah's rules? You must be kidding me.1- On Pro's distortion of my Aristotle CitationAristotle's books are found online but with a different page-numbering than my offline book-collection. Pro, however, assumed that the citation was not found.Online source: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au... [CTRL+F the paragraph]Aristotle says, "It has been previously stated that the discharge accompanying sexual pleasure in the female contributes nothing to the embryo. The chief argument for the opposite view is that what are called bad dreams occur by night with women as with men; but this is no proof, for the same thing happens to young men also who do not yet emit semen..."[1]Aristotle here says that he is convinced that the female discharge contributes nothing to the embryo, because of the weakness of the cheif argument of the opposite view which he falsifies brilliantly. This is considered a scientific error because we now know the role of the female discharge.Pro here attempts a cheap-shot on the credibility of my citations, and completely fails because I showed with an online, trusted citation that Aristotle held such a belief.2- Qur'an as a linguistic miracle?Pro says, "I say, The Qur’an is impossible to match linguistically. And this proposition so easy to be disproved."Rebuttal 1: Pro here is shifting the Burden of Proof. Pro is the one making the positive claim that th Qur'an is impossible to match linguistically, and thus he should be the one proving it. This is also a "Black Swan" argument. If it hasn't been done, this doesn't mean it never will.Rebuttal 2: What are the criteria to determine if it matches linguistically? Are they objective? Pro mentioned eloquence and beauty in his quotes when eloquence and beauty are pretty much subjective. Even if I were to present a chapter, there would be no way to objectively determine its linguistic value. Pro has not provided any objective criteria for that.Rebuttal 3 [Knockdown refutation]: Pro is still committing the same non-sequitur fallacy by implying that if the Qur'an cannot be matched, it should be sent from God. The conclusion doesn't follow the premises and the hence whole argument is a big logical fallacy. The Qur'an could still be man-made and yet be unmatched with all Arabic literature. Pro's argument is completely demolished on logical grounds, even if I don't provide a replicated Surah.Pro explains, "If only I said it, or only muslims said it, I would totally agree with you. But non-muslims also said same thing."Rebuttal 1: Pro quotes E H Palmer who actually refutes Pro by saying that he believes the Qur'an is unmatched to Arab Muslims because "they[Arab Authors] have agreed before-hand that it is unapproachable, and they have adopted its style as the perfect standard; any deviation from it therefore must of necessity be a defect." Palmer is explaining the "prejudice" and "priori illogic" that Arab Muslims have.Rebuttal 2: Pro quote-mines Gibb who actually is saying that Prophet Mohammad satisfied what the Meccans thought was a miracle. If Gibb believed it was a miracle, why would he remain Non-Muslim?3- Expanding universe miracle claim?Pro said the interpretations he offered say the universe is "currently expanding". They don't.Tafsir Alqasemy: We are able to expand it, more than it is already expanded.[It says "we are able" not "we are currently"]Tafsir alfayruz abadi: {We are the expanders} of it when we want. [Corrected Translation][Al Fayruz used the noun "L-Mousi'ona لَمُوسِعُونَ " which we established to mean (Expanders)]In summary, Pro's interpretation is not even supported by Muslim interpreters. 3- Arithmetic miracle claim?This miracle-claim says that because the number "19" appears in many counts in the Qur'an, then the Qur'an must be revealed by God. This is yet another non-sequitur; conclusion doesn't follow the premises. Any human author can follow such a mathematical model. Why must it be God?4- Relative Time miracle claim?The verse simply says that an angel's travel to God would seem like thousands of years to humans. How is that Einsteinian relativity? It's like saying 2 days of traveling by camel is like 14 days of walking on foot. Moreover, the verse commits a scientific error because it is built on the assumption that God is in the sky and angels physically reach Him. ...Pro deserves a seven-point loss, but I continued demolishing all his miracle-claims. He is expected to say "As Agreed" in the next turn.[1] ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/generation/book2.html