The Instigator
AliAdnan
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Teaparty1
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Quran is not man-made book

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
AliAdnan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,262 times Debate No: 78122
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (35)
Votes (3)

 

AliAdnan

Pro

The topic: Quran is not man-made book
I represent Pro side so I will be arguing that Quran is not man-made book i.e. the man couldn't write that book.


We have four rounds:
1. Acceptance
2. Opening statements (arguments, contentions)
3. Rebuttals
4. Final rebuttals, conclusions

*There is no new arguments and assertions after second round.

I am looking forward the fair and interesting debate.
Teaparty1

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
AliAdnan

Pro

Definitions:
The Quran, the last revealed word of God, is the primary source of every Muslim’s faith and practice.
It deals with all the subjects which concern human beings: wisdom, doctrine, worship, transactions, law, etc., but its basic theme is the relationship between God and His creatures. At the same time, it provides guidelines and detailed teachings for a just society, proper human conduct, and an equitable economic system. (1)
Man-made: produced, formed, or made by humans. (2)

There are six 'possible' authors of the Quran :

  1. Muhammad
  2. Arab poet(s), scholars, etc.
  3. Non-Arab scholars, poets, etc.
  4. Jew or Christian
  5. Satan (or spirits or aliens, etc.)
  6. God

Through the contentions, the most logical answer will remain.

Contention 1. Quran is completely preserved
During the life of Prophet, Quran has been preserved in two ways: by memorization and by writing.
Michael Zwettler said : “in ancient times, when writing was scarcely used, memory and oral transmission was exercised and strengthened to a degree now almost unknown.”(3) It helped people to memorize whole Quran during the life of Muhammad.
The first person who knew the entire Quran was Muhammad. He recited it to companions who memorized it verbatim. Some of them are: 'Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Aisha (Prophet's wife)...(4)
Quran had been written down in its entirety in the time of the Prophet but had not been brought together in one single place, it occurred the year after death of Prophet. The 14 years later a few oldest copies were written and sent to capital cities. (5)
Every generation after Muhammad has been memorizing entire Quran, so today Quran is only book which is memorized by millions of people.(6) Famous British orientalist John Burton confirmed the authenticity of Quran.(7)
But anyway manuscripts testify that Quran text hasn't changed. For example is Institue fur Koranforschung that collected 42,000 copies of Quran and after 50 years of research they confirmed the text of Quran isn't changed. (8)

Contention 2. Quran: a literary and linguistic miracle
The Quran cannot be described as any of the known literary forms. Its uniqueness is confirmed by Muslims scholars and Western scholarship (Arthur J. Arberry, Professor Bruce Lawrence and D.J. Stewart.) (9)
The Quran is the inimitable literary work in Arabic (10), Quran challenged the mankind to write the chapter as same as in the Quran.
That challenge wasn't met by the early Arabs who were literary experts (11), even the best linguist of that time admitted Quran's inimitability (12). All the attempts to imitate Quran were unsuccessful until this day. (13) That was confirmed also by non-Muslim F.F. Arbuthnot.(14)
Muhammad has never written any poetry or had a rethorical gift (was illiterate).(15)

Contention 3. Remarkable features and historical statements of the Quran
There are scientific and historical facts found in the Quran which were unknown to the people at the time, and have only been discovered recently by contemporary science. I will cite the Quran verses and the scientific explanation:

  • We made every living thing from water? Will they not believe? [21:30] - We now know that cells are mostly made up of water (16). It was discovered only after the invention of the microscope.
  • We sent down Iron..[57:25] - Science discovered that iron was carried by meteorites from distant stars. (17)
  • We made the sky a protective ceiling..[21:32] - Sky(atmosphere)'s protection discovered in the 20th c. (18)
  • the mountains as stakes? [78:7] - In fact mountains do have deep roots. (19)
  • the Sun and the Moon, each floating in its orbit. [21:33] - It's a fact now that Sun and Moon are not stationary. (20)
  • Darkness out in a deep ocean which is covered by waves, above which are waves.. [24:40]- Internal waves and darkness deep in the ocean discovered with special equipment (21) which didn't exist 1400 years ago.
  • the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them..[21:30]- The Quran states how the universe came up just like the Big Bang theory describes the beginning of the Universe. (22)
  • Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke.. [41:11] - Before Earth and stars, universe was a smoke (23). This stage of universe is mentioned 1400 years ago.
  • And that He creates the two mates the male and female from a sperm-drop when it is emitted [53:45,46] - Quran stated that gender depends of male and now it's a scientific fact. (24)
  • Yes. [We are] Able [even] to proportion his fingertips. [75:4] - Quran distinguishes that if God can create different fingertips He can create all mankind. We know that because fingerprints are unique, even identical twins have a different fingerprints.(25)
  • And by the dawn when it breathes.[81:18]- The sunlight starting at dawn makes possible photoynthesis (breathing) which produces oxygen. (26)
  • And your Lord inspired to the bee, "Take for yourself among the mountains, houses, and among the trees and [in] that which they construct. [16:68]- Quran uses feminine form for actions of bee which means that female bees are wroking all that.This is confirmed by science much later that all workers bee are female. (27)
  • So when the stars are obliterated [77:8] And when the stars fall, scattering.[82:2] When the sun is wrapped up [in darkness] [81:1] - These are Quran sayings about end of stars, Sun... These ends are confirmed by the science. (28)

These are some topics mentioned in the Quran which are also described lately by science. There are more examples (like described embryology in the Quran) but don't have a space to cite all that. Once again Quran is not scientific book, it's an instruction for every human.
*You can find every these cited verses on the page : quran.com

Contention 4. Quranic concept of God and its universal message
Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone. [112:1-4] This is the best explanation of God in the Quran.
God is the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe who created everything for a reason. Muslims believe that He created humankind with a simple purpose – to worship Him. He sent messengers to guide people in fulfilling this purpose. Some of these messengers include Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. They all taught a consistent message about God by affirming His greatness as the Creator and guiding people to worship Him alone. This basic concept has always resonated with people’s natural understanding of God.
The Quran’s message is eternal and universal, transcending our differences in race, color, ethnicity and nationality. It provides guidance on every facet of human life – from economics and the ethics of trade to marriage, divorce, parenting, gender issues and inheritance.The Quran’s divine message applies to all aspects of life and rises above the superficial differences among humans. Its teachings guide the spiritual, social and intellectual needs of humanity. (29)

Conclusion
Muhammad couldn't make up the Quran because he was illiterate and didn't have special gift for poetry and rethorical speech. Arabs in the time of Muhammad couldn't write something similiar to Quran although they were the experts in speech and poetry, also the best of them admitted inimitability of Quran(mentioned that). Non-Arabs couldn't write the Quran because Quran is the masterpiece of Arabic language and to know such good Arabic you have to be Arab. Jews or Christians couldn't write Quran because there are many pieces in the Quran which are not mentioned in the Bible and also the final reason: no one in the sixth century couldn't write a book with such an universal content, literary miracle but also many facts which are confirmed by science. Quran also couldn't be from Satan because why would Satan invent Book which condemns him and the evil in the world? In the end, the most rational answer remain and it is God. The perfect concept of God from Quran is the best answer on the basic life questions.

  1. http://www.islam-guide.com...
  2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
  3. Michael Zwettler, The Oral Tradition of Classical Arabic Poetry, 1978, p.14.
  4. Jalal al-Din Suyuti, 'Al-Itqan fi-ulum al-Quran, Vol. I p.124
  5. http://en.alukah.net...
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org...(Quran)
  7. John Burton, The Collection of the Quran, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977, p.239-40.
  8. http://www.islamreligion.com... (p. 30,31)
  9. http://www.hamzatzortzis.com...
  10. https://en.wikipedia.org...
  11. http://www.academia.edu...
  12. Ibid.
  13. Ibid.
  14. F. F. Arbuthnot. 1885. The Construction of the Bible and the Koran. London, p 5
  15. Understanding the Qur’an: Themes & Styles, p. 1
  16. http://www.i-sis.org.uk... / Bruce Alberts, Essential Cell Biology
  17. https://en.wikipedia.org...
  18. Joseph M. Moran, Meteorology: the Atmosphere and the Science of Weather
  19. Terry A. Hicks, How Do Mountains Form? / Frank Press and Raymond Siever, Earth
  20. https://en.wikipedia.org...
  21. M. Grant Gross, Oceanography: A View of Earth
  22. https://en.wikipedia.org...
  23. http://news.sciencemag.org...
  24. http://www.baby2see.com...
  25. https://en.wikipedia.org...
  26. https://en.wikipedia.org...
  27. http://www.hivesforlives.com...
  28. https://en.wikipedia.org...
  29. http://www.whyislam.org...
Teaparty1

Con

Contention 1- If there are one or more errors or contradictions in the Quran, it is not from God. As God is an all-knowing and perfect being, it would not make sense that a book from him would contain any mistakes. I'm sure you will agree to this.

Contention 2- If God did not write the Quran, then it is man-made. The only non-human besides for God on your list of possible authors, is Satan. You say that the Quran couldn't be from Satan, and I agree.

Errors in the Quran

1) Quran 71:15 "Do you not consider how Allah has created seven heavens in layers" The earth's atmosphere is composed of only five layers.[1] Why does the Quran claim there are seven?

2) The moon appears lit because it reflects light from the sun. (and maybe from the stars and/or earth)[2]
Yet the author of the Quran seems to think the moon produces light itself.
Verse 71:16 says, "And made the moon therein a light..." The Arabic word for reflected (in`ikaas) is not used in the verse that says the Moon is a "light". It instead uses the word "Nuru" which is used to denote an entity that emits light. The word "Nuru" is also used in 24:35, to show that Allah is the "light" of the universe. Clearly the author is not implying that Allah reflects light from another source but is the source of the light.

3) Verses 86:6-7 read, "He was created from a fluid, ejected, emerging from between the backbone and the ribs." We know that sperm comes from the testicles, and semen from the pelvic region, which is not between the backbone and ribs. Why does the Quran tell us the wrong place that sperm originates from?

4) One of the verses you showed from the Quran was Verse 16:68. Interestingly enough, that same verse has an apparent error. 16:68-69 say, "And your Lord inspired to the bee... Then eat from all the fruits and follow the ways of your Lord laid down [for you]..." Bees don't eat fruit they eat pollen and nectar. If the lord commanded them to eat fruit, wouldn't they obey?

5) Verse 16:79: "Do they not see the birds controlled in the atmosphere of the sky? None holds them up except Allah. Indeed in that are signs for a people who believe." Birds fly because of the difference in air pressure between the lower and upper part of the wing. This creates lift which pushes the bird upward. The author of the Quran, seems to be unaware of this scientific process and says that "none" holds up the bird except for Allah.

6) Quran 5:116- "And behold! Allah will say: 'O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" The author is obviously not familiar with how the Trinity works. Mary was never worshipped. It was Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost.

7) Quran 9:30 "The Jews say, 'Ezra is the son of Allah '; and the Christians say, 'The Messiah is the son of Allah .' That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?" The problem is Jews have been strictly monotheistic and don't believe in any sort of trinity, or son of God. The Jews don't say, "Ezra is the son of Allah."

8) The Qur'an (2:18) calls non-believers "deaf, dumb, and blind". However, all the technology, medicine, and scientific advancements in the Muslim world are almost exclusively purchased from the non-Muslim countries. Computers, television, space travel, helicopters, media players, nuclear bombs, cameras, satellites, birth control pills, vaccinations, telephones, radios, light bulbs, microchips, games consoles, refrigerators, microwaves, plastic, aluminium, x-rays, antibiotics, heart-transplants, the internet etc., were all invented by non-Muslims.[3]

9) 23:14 "Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!" First, at no point does sperm become a clot of blood. Second, bones and flesh form simultaneously. Third, what is the creature developed out of the bones and flesh?

10) The Quran forbids believers to marry idolatrous women [Sura 2:221], and calls Christians idolaters and unbelievers [9:28-33], but then in 5:5, allows Muslims to marry Christian women. Can Muslims marry Christian women or not? Or more importantly, why does the Quran say both?

11) 22:47 says, "...a day with your Lord is like a thousand years of those which you count." But 70:4 says, "...a Day the extent of which is fifty thousand years." Which one is it?

12) Verse 78:6 says, "Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse..." Now this sounds like it is implying the earth is flat. Why else would it say, "wide?" It could have said large or massive, but wide implies a flat surface. That the author thought the earth is flat, is also supported by verse 20:53, "Who has made earth for you like a bed (spread out)" And, 79:30, which says, "And after that He spread the earth;" Just looking at these verses, and the choice of words used, leads one to believe that the author did not know that the earth was spherical.

Arguments against the existence of Allah

This is relevant to this debate because if Allah doesn't exist, he couldn't have written the Quran.

Allah is all powerful. Why did he,
(Allah is a he, he has nothing physical but somehow we know tht Allah is a he...) in 2009, allow Nidal Malik Hasan to fatally shoot 13 people and shoot and injure more than 30?[4] Allah is also a perfect being, and he is only good. Does it make sense that an all-powerful, all-good, perfect being, would sit back and not intervene when innocent soldiers and a civilian are being slaughtered?

The Quran says that Allah all-knowing and all-wise. According to the Quran, Allah knew that Osama Bin Laden would be a terrorist and would orchesrate many terrorist attacks. Why would Allah have allowed him to be born? Isn't Allah supposed to be 100% good? So he should have stopped Osama's evil.

One moment please. I'd like to make a prayer. Dear merciful great Allah, please stop this slanderous debate argument from being posted. Please also give me a Rolls Royce. All the best, Teaparty1

Just like all of us would have thought, this argument was successfully posted. Additionally I am still Rolls Royce-less. You can try your own prayer, go ahead. See if it works.

Back in 2006 there was a large study done on the effects of intercessory prayer (prayer that God should intervene.) A major result from the study was
“Intercessory prayer had no effect on recovery from surgery without complications.”[5] In fact, the group of patients who were not prayed for, had a one percentage point higher rate of complications.[6] Allah let these people become sick - thats bad enough. Then he didn't even respond to people's requests that the surgeries should go well. Smh.

Why did Allah make it that people are born? If there is a greater good after we die, he should have put us there straight away. If the answer is that we have to earn our way to that greater good, that wouldn't make sense either. Allah is all-powerful, so he CAN make us go to that great place WITHOUT earning it. If he is 100% caring and 100% good, he should give us the best possible experience immediatly.

Conclusion

It is highly unlikely that an invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful, non-physical being, wrote the Quran. Therefore it is most likely man-made.



Sources

1) http://www.windows2universe.org...
2) http://www.universetoday.com...
3) I got this from http://wikiislam.net...
4) http://www.washingtonpost.com...
5) http://www.patheos.com...
6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... the complication rates and aditional details about the study can be found there
Debate Round No. 2
AliAdnan

Pro

Review on your contentions:
Contention 1.- I agree that if there is only one mistake in the Quran then it's not the book of God.
Contention 2.- This is not about writer of Quran but the author of that book. It's not the same. Quran has been revealed to Muhammed and then Muhammad would recite that and the scribes would write that.

Rebuttals on "Errors in the Quran":

1) There is no place in the Quran where God says that the concept of seven heveans is concept of atmosphere and its layers. When Quran are saying about seven heveans, it's saying about heveans in general, not the atmosphere layers.(1)
Also the science now saying that there are mulitple (uni)verses, one above other, which confirm Quran statement.(2)

2) This is misuse of words because word nuran which is used in that verse don't refers to entity that emits light. When Quran speaking about Moon and what is purpose of him, it uses word munira which means reflected light( for example: 25:61 verse).

3) This is wrond translation of words and the Christians and atheists often use this example to attack Quran but the true translation of word sulb is not ribs but the loins. (3)

4) The words: from all the fruits means from all kind of podructs and the polen and nectar are products or fruits.

5) You again misuse the meaning. This is not saying scientificaly how birds fly but show the power of God.

6) Mary was and is worshipped. Even if you dont't believe in Trinity, you are trying to use that against Islam. It's not correct. When you go in the church you will see big statue of Mary and the Christians have that statues home and they pray in front of them, but they won't say that they worship her. (4)

7) Quran doesn't refer to all Jews, but there was few people who claimed that as there are some Christians who claim that Jesus is not son of God. (5)

8) Dumb = inarticulate. This words refer not to power to invent but the power to comprehend God.

9) Even the science confirmd concept of embriology in islam , and you are trying to misrepresent something. (6)

  1. http://www.onislam.net...
  2. https://www.youtube.com...
  3. https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com...
  4. http://www.patheos.com...
  5. https://www.youtube.com...
  6. http://www.islam-guide.com...

Teaparty1

Con

4) The verse says, "Then eat from all the fruits..." The bee doesn't eat from all the fruits or all of anything, it eats from flowers or honey. And how does "from all the fruits" mean all kinds of products?

5) I quoted the verse. It says "none holds them up except Allah." Where is the misuse of meaning? It seems that the author didn't know about the scientific phenomenon of flight. It seems the author thought that birds flying in the sky is magical. You say the verse is to show the power of God. The only statement about the power of God in the verse is, "none holds them up except Allah." Which would imply that Allah is holding the birds and not air pressure.

6) Christians do not worship Mary. I don't think you read the piece that was your source. The point of it was that it is a misconception that Catholics worship Mary, they hold her in high regard, but do not worship her. "The honor we give her, therefore, and the dulia we give her is higher than any other being. But it is not latria. We’re clear about that. We do not worship Mary."

7) I've never heard of Jews claiming that Ezra was the son of God. Actually, I think it is a preposterous claim. Do you have a source for that?

8) Then according to your logic Mohamed was dumb, and the verse is contradictory anyway.

9) What science has confirmed embryology in Islam? The point is, it says blood clot. To my knowledge at no point in the fertilization process or after, does a blood clot form. The article you sourced for your claim says, "The third meaning of the word alaqah is 'blood clot.' We find that the external appearance of the embryo and its sacs during the alaqah stage is similar to that of a blood clot." Similar is nice, but the verse doesn't say similar, it says "made into a blood clot," Allah is not supposed to make mistakes. Finally, what's your evidence that I'm trying to misrepresent something? And what "something" do you think I am trying to misrepresent. I don't like your hollow claims.
Debate Round No. 3
AliAdnan

Pro

I will continue with refutation of your claims.

4) If you look at other translations (1) you will see that this is nothing but same thing said in different ways. But even if you take dictionary and look for 'fruits' (2) you will see that this is no error and the bees eat all the fruits (products) they want.

5) You don't want to understand basic thing. If God said that He helps people in need, does it mean He gives money and buys houses for people? No. But He helps people to feel better and safe. The same thing is with birds. If God said that He holds birds up, does it mean He holds every bird when she flies? Definitely, NO. The God created laws of nature and physics and everything on the Earth and in the universe happen with that laws. God in the Quran also says: Do they not see the birds above them with wings outspread and [sometimes] folded in? None holds them [aloft] except the Most Merciful. Indeed He is, of all things, Seeing.(3) God doesn't contradict himself and in that verse He has just affirmed that His laws of nature and physics are the reason why birds fly. The reasonable person understands this.

6) God in the Quran didn't say that all the Christians worship Mary but that there are groups in the Christianity that have different views of God (i.e. unitarianism, trinitarianism..) and God in the Quran mentions trinity too (4). Also there are some people who pray to Mary and the pray is act of worship. Although it didn't justified in the Bible, there are people who are doing that, even Christians confirmed such claims. (5)

7) It seems that you do not know much about Judaism, Islam and Christianity but try to use one religion against another. The fact is that Jews called every pious man son of God and the Ezra was one of them. But Quran doesn't say that all Jews has taken Ezra literally as son of God, just like the all Christians didn't take Jesus for son of God.(6) And Christians who say that Jesus is son of God, don't think literally that he is son of God, but in the spiritual way. And it is logically you didn't hear any Jew talk about Ezra son of God because it will be confused with Christian version of son of God(7). And as God says in that verse : "That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them] " clearly we can see that such claims are man-made and that Scriptures don't contain those claims.

8) I have to ask you: are you ok ? There is no logic in your answer. If someone wants to help you, and calling you, but you are not answering, then you are blind, mute and deaf. And that is current situation. I haven't answered first time on your saying that only non-Muslims gave contribution to science. That can say only uneducated person. In Middle ages, when Europe was the black hole, the Islamic caliphate was advanced in every way. The science was progressive and successful. The Spain was under islamic government for centuries. Even the first modern university is established in Islamic world in Morocco in 859 by the muslim woman (8). Muslim scientists gave the great contribution to science in Europe which will be establish later. Your claim is in collision with common sense and facts.

9) There is no need to answer on 'hollow claims' because voters will notice who used logic, common sense, history and science and who used information from pages like wikiislam and similar to that. You can deny the true scientific knowlegde about embryology ( because you don't want to believe) but everytime I could enclose you the new source which confirm my claims. (9)

10) The God in the Quran forbids to marry polytheistic women and there is difference between polytheistic and idolatrous , the word you used. The society where Quran revealed was polytheistic. Muslim can marry Christian woman as long as she is monotheistic believer. This is misuse, misconception and the evil actions that you do all the time here. Take few words, make a story and then delude people who do not know the real explanation.

11) I am happy you mention this. Because these verses affirm new miracle of Quran: the relativity of time. There is difference between time where is God, the time between us and God, and the time where we live. (10)

12) The verse (interpretation of the meaning) “And Allah has made for you the earth wide spread (an expanse)” [Nooh 71:19] indicates that it is spread out and shaped so that people can feel settled in it and be able to live and prosper in it. Ibn Katheer said: That is, He spread it out, prepared it, made it stable and made it firm by means of the mountains. Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 8/247


I am glad that my opponent didn't refute any of my contentions, especially lignuistic miracle and history facts abour preservation. He just tried to make contradictions and copy from pages which do that.
Teaparty1

Con

Jews do not call pious men "sons of God." I know the Quran doesn't say all Jews referred to Ezra as the son of God. I asked you to provide me with just one source from any time, where any Jew(s) has referred to Ezra as the son of God.

9) Voters, please take a particularly close look at this one. Pro says, "You can deny the true scientific knowledge about embryology..." What the hell are you talking about? The Quran says it forms into a blood clot. It does not. Your source last round linked to an article which didn't even claim that it does, but tried satisfying the verse by saying it turns into something similar to a blood clot. This time your source is linked to an article about time relativity. Show me a damned source or a backup to this claim that during embryonic development it turns into a blood clot. None?

Yes I didn't directly refute any of your contentions. I refuted your resolution and gave many reasons to back it up. Voters could decide who's arguments were stronger.


Debate Round No. 4
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AllahoAkbar 1 year ago
AllahoAkbar
@Teaparty
again the verse is not talking about sperm, let's read again what Allah said 1400 years ago in the Quran (86:5-8) "So let man observe from what he was created., He was created from a fluid, ejected, Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs., Indeed, Allah , to return him [to life], is Able."

Does this looks like the Quran is talking about the semen only?
While the sperm is produced in the testicles, Neither is the sperm or the seminal fluid (essential for natural fertilization) anywhere near them prior to ejaculation.
the verse specifically mentions the entire fluid of semen and not just the sperm component, Sperm is stored in the Epididymis which is not in the Testicles but above them, the sperms which comprises 2% to 5% of the seminal fluid travels Epididymis up through the (Vas Deferens) duct up and around the bladder, together the Seminal Vesicle and the Prostate Gland produce 90% of the fluid in Semen, this mixture travels through the prostate and joined by a mucus from the Bulbourethral Gland just below the prostate.
and only at this point that Semen is fully formed comprising both the Sperm and the Seminal Fluid, and just prior to coming out of the body all component of Semen are mixed near the prostate (centered in the body) between the Backbone Spine and the Ribs Chest, and most certainly not in the testicles or the lower body at all.
if you disagree by saying that the Ribs are too high to say that the prostate is between the "backbone and the Ribs", the answer is the Head is still between the shoulders even though it is too high, and the Genitals are still between the legs even though they are too high.

I really hope you are truly seeking knowledge, for the Quran is God's timeless miracle to mankind.
Peace.
Posted by Teaparty1 1 year ago
Teaparty1
Allahoakbar "The sperm starts in the testicles and move..." http://scienceline.ucsb.edu... "Sperm is produced in the testicles..." http://www.answers.com... "a man's sperm, which is produced by the testes (testicles)..." https://www.volumepills.com...
Lastly, if you want to talk about the other parts that are involved in production of semen, that would be the prostate and seminal vesicles, neither of which are between the spine and ribs.
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 1 year ago
LostintheEcho1498
8. The refutation is partially correct, but lacks substance. It makes a claim with no backing. 9. Here, Con uses the source against Pro. The wording of the blood clot here is semantics, and so no point. Con uses no sources in this entire argument, making his arguments much less stable and much more opinion.
Fourth Round: Pro goes straight to refutation: 4. Semantics with sources. A little better, but still semantics. 5. This is borderline semantics without sources. I want to give this to Pro, but still feel it's semantics. 6. This I will give to Pro as he sources facts behind this. 7. This goes to Pro for having the source to begin with as well as refuting. 8. This is closer to a grudge argument. Not giving points here. 9. This goes to Pro. He presented sources to back up his argument with facts. 10. Here Pro comes back to 10-12, and in 10 he responds with an explanation but no sourcing. No point either way. 11. Sourced and explained. Point Pro. 12. Semantics again. Nothing either way. Con only makes one refutation and rants some, flooding this with unprofessional argument. I find nothing here to reward. Now to return and tally up, 1. Neither 2. Neither 3. Pro 4. Neither 5. Neither 6. Pro 7. Pro 8. Neither 9. Pro 10. Neither 11. Pro 12. Neither. Therefore, for arguments, I vote pro. As for my vote on conduct, grammar, and sources, I don't believe this was in question.
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 1 year ago
LostintheEcho1498
Just btw, I keep running out of space and I swear it says NEXT COMMENT on my computer. Just know that's what it's supposed to be. Anyway, back to round 1. This round will be null, as it mainly is a stage setter for future rounds. I also just realized I made a mistake when saying round 1. I meant the first round of arguments. My bad. I am just going to run with it and hope you can forgive.
Second Round(of arguments): Pro goes straight to rebuttals in his second round. Review on your contentions: 1. Pro agrees with Con on the Quran having to have no errors in order to be of God. 2. Pro makes the point that the reflected light is a result of a different word. 3. The source for this is sketchy, being a blog itself. I read through, and it seemed legitimate, but would require an additional source of better credibility to be of an even better use. 4. This is one of the more arguable points. I looked at the entire verse and it could be seen either way, so I don't give this as either a point toward Pro or Con. Too ambiguous. 5. Poor rebuttal. Goes Con. 6. I will give this to Pro. He refuted and sourced it. 7. Your rebuttal itself was confusing and seemed to ignore a part of the argument, but the source was a very legitimate one and explained this. I'll give this to Pro. 8. Not a powerful refutation, but still makes a point. I give this to neither, as both could be correct. 9. After reading through the source, the science behind this is moderately understood, and so legitimate. However, this is not explained by Pro, so nothing here yet. Pro fails to respond to 10, 11, and 12, and so give this to Con for now. Now to Con, he skips straight to 4, and so give 1, 2, and 3 to Pro regardless. 4. Continued semantics. Still no point for either. 5. Again, more semantics. Can't score semantics. 6. A good attempt, but the source gives both sides of the argument, so usable by Pro and Con. Not a heavy blow to Pro. 7. Pro already provided a source in his previous statement. NEXT COMMENT
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 1 year ago
LostintheEcho1498
Just btw, I keep running out of space and I swear it says NEXT COMMENT on my computer. Just know that's what it's supposed to be. Anyway, back to round 1. This round will be null, as it mainly is a stage setter for future rounds. I also just realized I made a mistake when saying round 1. I meant the first round of arguments. My bad. I am just going to run with it and hope you can forgive.
Second Round(of arguments): Pro goes straight to rebuttals in his second round. Review on your contentions: 1. Pro agrees with Con on the Quran having to have no errors in order to be of God. 2. Pro makes the point that the reflected light is a result of a different word. 3. The source for this is sketchy, being a blog itself. I read through, and it seemed legitimate, but would require an additional source of better credibility to be of an even better use. 4. This is one of the more arguable points. I looked at the entire verse and it could be seen either way, so I don't give this as either a point toward Pro or Con. Too ambiguous. 5. Poor rebuttal. Goes Con. 6. I will give this to Pro. He refuted and sourced it. 7. Your rebuttal itself was confusing and seemed to ignore a part of the argument, but the source was a very legitimate one and explained this. I'll give this to Pro. 8. Not a powerful refutation, but still makes a point. I give this to neither, as both could be correct. 9. After reading through the source, the science behind this is moderately understood, and so legitimate. However, this is not explained by Pro, so nothing here yet. Pro fails to respond to 10, 11, and 12, and so give this to Con for now. Now to Con, he skips straight to 4, and so give 1, 2, and 3 to Pro regardless. 4. Continued semantics. Still no point for either. 5. Again, more semantics. Can't score semantics. 6. A good attempt, but the source gives both sides of the argument, so usable by Pro and Con. Not a heavy blow to Pro. 7. Pro already provided a source in his previous statement. NEXT COMMENT
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 1 year ago
LostintheEcho1498
4. Party foul. This is a rebuttal within Round 1 and against the structure. No reward. 5. This is partially correct. That air pressure requires wind, however, within any capacity. This whole process is more than creating lift with wings. Birds are specialized for flight biologically, from their bodies to their feathers. Will be brought up again later. 6. Point well made. 7. I make no pretense of understanding who Ezra is meant to be, and give Con the point for now. 8. After checking the source, it was not credible. It is first a wiki site, which is generally frowned upon, as well as not being to content guidelines as stated at the top of the webpage. Regardless, the point made is still valid to at least some degree. 9. This is arguable, and will be brought up again. 10. Valid point for now. 11. This is classic misdirection. The whole verse to 70:4 is "The angels and the Spirit will ascend to Him during a Day the extent of which is fifty thousand years." This is speaking of a different event compared to what is considered an average day with the Lord. 12. This is grasping at straws, being picky about words. I don't see any real evidence toward the Earth being flat in any verse presented. Wide does not equal flat. Different ideas. The point made that the Earth is stretched out as a bed for us is a metaphor, therefore arguable. Arguments against the existence of Allah: Con gives rhetoric without much backing. It is also here that conduct points were given to Pro, as Con showed explicitly aggressive and offense behavior. One piece here is sourced having to do with prayer and recovery/complications within surgery. I will allow this one, as the source was credible and the information correctly given, although was more likely due to bad luck. Conclusion: A short summary of Con's position.
I will grade round by round. For round 1, I give a tie. Both sides presented information that was sourced and to try and nit pick between this bit and that would be redundant.NEXT COMMEN
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 1 year ago
LostintheEcho1498
Fair enough. I'll post RFD here as well as PM. I realize I am going to be a bit overdoing it, but better safe then sorry:

First Round: Pro made the arguments that 1.The Quran is completely preserved. I will admit a mixture of awe and skepticism to this. A book is still the same verbatim, despite a year gap between it being completely written. If true, this is impressive toward Pro's point. Therefore, I checked the source and while not the most popular, they are legitimate. 2. Quran: a literary and linguistic miracle. Again, supported by legitimate sources. 3. Remarkable features and historical statements of the Quran. Pro makes several examples of parts of the Quran that exhibit science that is only now understood. Some of these are a bit forced, for lack of a better word. Some do have legitimate points, however, and will be discussed further later. 4. Quranic concept of God and its universal message. Half of this entire argument is a source, which while an organization, does not create any credibility. It is a biased source being used for text alone, which is fine as it was given credit, but lacks any sense of source affirming credibility. Conclusion: Pro simply recaps his previous points, with no real, new info given.
First Round: Con made many contentions and so instead of numbering and commenting on each, I will number and allow you to figure it out :) 1. Agreed, mostly. It is a book that went through the hands of man, and translation. This causes some things to get lost in translation as to their true meaning. 2. Both sides agree the Quran was not written by Satan or humankind. Errors in Quran: 1. This is a true point. 2. This bit I find partially confusing. Con points out that the Arabic word used is one not to say "light", but instead something that emits light. Whether through reflection or internally, it could be argued as to the true meaning of "emits light". And it will. 3. It cannot be certain this is about sperm, but still a valid point. NEXT COMMEN
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: LostintheEcho1498// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources, Conduct) 1 point to Con (Conduct). First off, conduct goes to Pro. Con was overly aggressive to the point of offensive. That said, spelling and grammar go to Con. Pro constantly missed common words and made his arguments harder to read with any coherence. Next, I give argument to Pro. Con did well refuting the resolution in some aspects, but failed to do so completely, leaving holes in his argument. Pro did have parts of his argument refuted, with debate as to several of those points on who was truly correct, but did maintain several points that Con was unable to refute. Lastly, Pro receives sources due to an overabundance of them, many reliable.

[*Reason for removal*] The arguments points are far too vague. The voter doesn't point to any specific arguments made in the debate, instead making vague generalities about Con's refutation and Pro's case defense. A voter must do more than this, explaining what points mattered most and why Con's refutation of them was insufficient. As given, the voter isn't providing any means to show that he's read the debate and has made his conclusions directly from the arguments given.
************************************************************************
Posted by AliAdnan 1 year ago
AliAdnan
All your errors were responded. English is my second lagnuage and I am still learning it. And I added one letter accidentelly but your claim for that is the last ounce of energy to discredit my saying. I very good understand what I am talking about, I am a senior year in high medical school.
Posted by Teaparty1 1 year ago
Teaparty1
Also you responded to my argument about a blood clot without even knowing what you were responding to. What would a blood "cloth" have to do with embryology?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by LostintheEcho1498 1 year ago
LostintheEcho1498
AliAdnanTeaparty1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by AllahoAkbar 1 year ago
AllahoAkbar
AliAdnanTeaparty1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provides a typical (copy & paste) uneducated arguments for example he pointed; 1- "The earth's atmosphere is composed of only five layers" I personally memorize the verse and the "seven heavens" mentioned are not the earth atmospheric layers he pointing at. 2- "(and maybe from the stars and/or earth)" that is a guess work, also "Muniran" in the verse associated with the moon but not the Sun "Sirajan Muniran" which makes clear deference to the reader between self emitting light and omitting borrowed light. as in the case of the moon. 3-"" We know that sperm comes from the testicles" you know wrong, please do a little research you will see that the Quran is correct, and the word in the verse is not sperm it is "a fluid" the Sperm is only 5% of the fluid ejected. 4-"all the fruits" the Arabic word in the verse is "Men Kol Althamarat" to an arabic speaking reader it's understood as "Then to eat of all the produce (of the earth)" as translated by Yusuf Ali and Dr. Ghali, and So on.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
AliAdnanTeaparty1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.