The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,201 times Debate No: 35836
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)




I'm looking forward for this debate. My position is that there exists at least one scientific flaw in the Qur'an. I'll be providing three separate cases which I think are all scientific flaws. To win the debate, my opponent has to provide well-supported, reasonable apologetic that refutes my three cases. I win the debate if at least one of my cases is found convincing by the voters.

Scientific flaw: An error or a falsehood that conveys unscientific information.

1- Opponent needs to offer better translations if he/she rejects any of the translations used.

2- Opponent needs to accept that Classical Arabic is very similar to Modern Standard Arabic.

3- Forfeits are not allowed. I can't stop my opponent from forfeiting, but I listed this as a condition for the voters to penalize anyone who forfeits.

4- The first round is acceptance only.

5- In the last round, my opponent has to say "As agreed." He/she is not allowed to argue, given that I won't be able to respond to any apologetic presented in the final round.

6- Opponent has to accept all the definitions and rules given here.

I await my opponent's acceptance.



I agree with the terms and await this debate.

The Quran is not a book of science. However, it is the word of God. Thus it is 100% accurate scientifically, even beyond the capabilities of the knowledge present in the culture it was revealed on and now.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for his reply, even though he seemed to be debating another topic. The debate topic clearly says, "There exists at least one scientific flaw in the Qur'an." And "Exists" is in the present tense. This means that my position is that according to our contemporary knowledge there exists at least one scientific flaw in the Qur'an.

Con has to accept that or forfeit the debate because he seems to imply that even if there are 'scientific flaws' now they'll be resolved in the future, when the debate is clearly about scientific flaws present now.

Here are my cases that the Qur'an is unscientific:

A- Semen Production in the Qur'an

Surah 86:5-7 claims that semen comes out of the backbone and the ribs.

Surah 86:5-7 - Yusuf Ali's Translation: 'Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.'

Remarks on the Translation: The original Arabic verse uses the term "gushing water" and not the word "drop" as opposed to the translation above.

This is clearly describing a water-like liquid in the body that is responsible for the creation of human beings. There are also many other verses which describe semen in that way. For instance, Surah 32:8 says that Allah made man's progeny(immediate descendants of a person) from ignominious water(using the word "Ma'an" which stands for water to describe Semen).

Ibn Kathir is an important historian, narrator and interpreter who studied the Qur'an and explained its verses. It would be useful to see whether his explanation holds any scientific grounds.

Ibn Kathir on Surah 86:5-7: 'Allah emphasizes the inherent weakness of man... Allah says that man has been created from a mix of seminal fluid of man which gushes forth from the backbone and the yellowish fluid of woman that flows from her ribs.'

Even if the ribs (in the verse) belong to the woman, neither does semen gush forth from the backbone, nor does the female sexual fluid flow from the ribs. Sperms are released by testicles, which are not even near the backbone. While ova are released by ovaries, which are not even close to the ribs. The production and travel of sperms indubitably occurs away from the aforementioned region. What actually happens is that immature sperms migrate from the testes to the epydidmis, in which they undergo maturation. Then after intercourse, mature sperms travel from the epydidmis to the vas deferens and the ejaculatory ducts. Needless to say, this all does not occur even near the ribs or the backbone.

In an attempt to explain the verse scientifically, Dr. Zakir Naik, an Islamic apologist and debater, states:

'In embryonic stages, the reproductive organs of the male and female, i.e. the testicles and the ovaries, begin the development near the kidney between the spinal column and the eleventh and twelfth ribs. Later they descend; the female gonads (ovaries) stop in the pelvis while the male gonads (testicles) continue their descent before birth to reach the scrotum through the inguinal canal. Even in the adult after the descent of the reproductive organ, these organs receive their nerve supply and blood supply from the Abdominal Aorta, which is in the area between the backbone (spinal column) and the ribs. Even the lymphatic drainage and the venous return goes to the same area.'

The original verse does not mention embryonic development as Dr. Naik does, but simply pinpoints to the location at which bodily "water" gushes forth from. Therefore, the actual verse seems to be referring to developed sexual organs, which unlike embryonic sexual organs can secrete substances or fluids. The kidneys in the embryonic stage develop near the heart. However, this does not mean that urine gushes forth from the heart. Similarly, semen cannot be said to stream from between the backbone and the ribs, since the testes supposedly develop in that location in the embryonic stage. In order to explain this, Dr.Naik claims that "gushing water" could refer to the blood supply or nerve supply of the developed sexual organs of an adult. His only reason being that this fits his assertion more, since that blood and lymph flow from the place mentioned in the Islamic scripture. Unfortunately, his interpretation leads to more conflicts and questions. For instance, "blood" was a well-known term that should have been used. There was no need to use "water" to describe blood, when the term fits semen more in describing fluids of reproduction or creation. There are many verses where the word alddimaa(blood) is used, when the verses wanted to refer to blood. Take for an example Surah 2:30.

Surah 2:30 - Yusuf Ali's Translation: 'Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?...'

Furthermore, some verses clearly and directly indicate that we are created from fluid. Therefore, it would be absurd to regard the fluid of creation as the supply that supports our sexual organs, when such references exist. A good example of those verses is Surah 32:8.

Surah 32:8 - Yusuf Ali's Translation: 'And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised.'

*progeny ~ noun
1. the immediate descendants of a person.

Those are some apologetic I found online which addressed the issue, even though they were not convincing at all. Unless my opponent offers a reasonable and well-supported apologetic, the Qur'an is scientifically inaccurate when it describes semen production, given that it says that semen gushes forth from the ribs and the backbone.

B- Earthquakes and Mountains in the Qur'an

Surah 21:30 tells us that the mountains stop the earth from shaking.

Surah 21:30 - Yusuf Ali's Translation: 'And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance.'

The verse states that mountains were formed, so that the earth does not quake. However, this claim is absurd. Mountain formation is considered one of the reasons for earthquakes, and many earthquakes have happened in regions full of mountains. The U.S. Geological Survey tells us that the largest Earthquake(Magnitude 9.5) happened in Chile in 1960[1]. If we take a look at the landscape of this country, we would realize that mountains do not stop earthquakes.

Moreover, there is no such thing as firm or immovable mountains, since the earth's plates are in constant motion. This is why we always have earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.


To keep it simple, I'm not going to present my third case. Which means that Con only has to disprove my two cases to win this debate. I made it clear that we are just dealing with the present and using our contemporary, scientific knowledge. I hope Con doesn't play the mystery card tactic to disregard my claims based on the assertion that the current "scientific flaws" will turn out to be scientific truths someday in the future.



I am aware of that, and aware that the burden of proof depends on you. I deny the claim that I would or thought about resorting to the said argument, as I am aware that it is not fit for a debate.

I would generally disadvice against reducing one's ability to debate by imposing self restrictions. But I shall honor my opponent's request and do my best to fulfill the conditions and rules of this debate although that would put him on a disadvantage.

A-Semen Production

I would like to point out that old interruptions are excused, as we had more limited knowledge in the past. Therefore, they are not to be judged whether they were right or wrong, as long as they did the best they can with the more limited knowledge available to them. In Islam, you are rewarded for genuine effort.

Now, we can make these two observations:

1- The verse would talk about a single human being as the verse says the word "Between"/"Beina". It would have used "And" if they were separate.

2- The Quran uses the word "Insan" meaning "Human", so that does not necessarily imply a certain gender.
So the description can be for a certain gender or both of them.

I am also surprised that you mention the word "Sperm" and "Testicles". The location of the testes is irrelevant as semen is not created there. Sperm account for less than 5% of the semen [1]. It is ultimately created and stored in the Seminal Vesicle.
Kinda funny how you would criticize while make a grave error on the subject.

I would like to present you with this hadith related to the topic:

Anas b. Malik reported that Umm Sulaim narrated it that she asked the Apostle of Allah () about a woman who sees in a dream what a man sees (sexual dream). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon bi m) said:

In case a woman sees that, she must take a bath. Umm Sulaim said: I was bashful on account of that and said: Does it happen? Upon this the Apostle of Allah () said: Yes (it does happen), otherwise how can (a child) resemble her? Man's discharge (i. e. sperm) is thick and white and the discharge of woman is thin and yellow; so the resemblance comes from the one whose genes prevail or dominate.
Sahih Muslim, Book 3, Hadith 608

The word "genes" doesn't actually exist, but a translation is a translation. So we learn from this hadith is that the man's water is white which is semen, and the woman's water is yellow, which is the woman egg.
Whether this hadith is miraculous about the yellow discharge is unrelated to the topic. But it gives us a better understanding of the Quranic verse.

But can we call them water?

"Ejaculate is 90% water. Semen is a milky opalescence, and opaque. Opalescence increases when the ejaculate has a higher concentration of sperm." [2]

"Urologists generally say men can't modify the taste of semen. "In healthy men," says Lawrence Ross, M.D., of the University of Illinois, "the composition of seminal fluid is constant because it includes a precise mixture of components necessary to support sperm." If its composition is constant, its taste must be, too.Speaking of its composition, semen is about 96 percent water, plus:
..." [3]

Next is the woman, it would obviously reefer to the egg due to the yellow description.

"a woman’s egg is a single cell — the largest in the human body — composed primarily of water." [4]

And like the semen, the color of the egg should be common knowledge for mature people. [5]

The main issue is the location. The verse says "Comes out between the backbone and ribcage". In an other word, The fluid resides between the backbone and ribcage before coming out.
In order to avoid strawman my opponent must realize that the verse says "Between", not directly "From". As stated before, the storage place for semen is in the seminal vesicle. Looking at an anatomy chart, the seminal vesicles is included within the stated area. Thus the Quran is accurate. Notice that most of the male sexual parts are below the coccyx.

<a href=; />

The ovary is obvious.

Also, this hadith shows testicles being vital for fertility was a well known fact:

Narrated Sa`d bin Abi Waqqas:

Allah's Messenger () forbade `Uthman bin Maz'un to abstain from marrying (and other pleasures) and if he had allowed him, we would have gotten ourselves castrated.

Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 12

B- Earthquakes and Mountains

First, I would like to correct my opponet, the correct reference to the verse is Surah 21:31.

This is clearly based on misunderstanding of the verse. Verse 78:7 may shed more light on the subject:
"And the mountains as stakes?"

It's now known that most mountain ranges are underlain by crustal roots floating atop the hot plastically deforming mantle.
The roots grow as a result of compression during plate convergence. [6]

So what does have to do with it? The theory of Isostasy which explains the reason of stability of terrain. It is similar to an object floating on water, a part of it will be sank.

Isostasy controls the regional elevations of continents and ocean floors in accordance with the densities of their underlying rocks. Imaginary columns of equal cross-sectional area that rise from the asthenosphere to the surface are assumed to have equal weights everywhere on Earth, even though their constituents and the elevations of their upper surfaces are significantly different. This means that an excess of mass seen as material above sea level, as in a mountain system, is due to a deficit of mass, or low-density roots, below sea level. Therefore, high mountains have low-density roots that extend deep into the underlying mantle. [7]

So, reading the verse:
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)

We learn that:

1- Mountains are set firmly (A more literal word is: "Anchored"), via. underground roots/pegs/stakes.
2- That prevents the mountains from shaking. Which would make sense as it would lead to a state of isostasy equilibrium.
3- The mountain won't shake, and won't cause us to shake with it.

The verb is on the mountain. The Quran never made the claim that mountains prevent exterior sources of quakes or shaking. It only pointed to the fact that they contain roots that would prevent them from shaking, and thus providing a more stabilized environment and prevents disruptions that can be caused by the mountains themselves. Thus there is no inaccuracy.

Debate Round No. 2


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 Production

My 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'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[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 Mountains

Again, 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.

[2] 1.html


1- Semen Production

My opponent shows narrow sight. He considers his own boundaries the only standard. For example, saying that a human have his head or torso between his shoulders can be linguistically correct. It may reefer to the lower rips to the loin (Which I used as a basis for my argument). It may linguistically reefer to the whole torso.

I would like to inform my opponent that there is no such thing as a justified argument from authority. An argument from authority is confirming something to be true because an authority stated it. Even if we assume that the said person is an authority, his statements are not necessarily true or might reefer to something else.

I have also noticed that my opponent have not rebutted the arguments he apparently found online from Dr. Zakir Naik. He only used a personal incredibility, a fallacy, to justify his disagreement. Just because you find it hard to understand or imagine something does not make it untrue. So you will have to also prove that this interruption is scientifically incorrect in order to justify the resolution. Plus, the Quran is known to be rhetorical, and the previous verse asks us to think of what we are created from.

The existence of one scientifically correct interruption would nullify the resolution.
Therefore my opponent have to:

1- Show that the Quran linguistically reefer to his interruption of between. He also have the choice to prove that no linguistic meaning can include seminal vesicle.

2- Show that the verse cannot reefer to the embryonic origin of the sexual organs. He may start by proving that they do not originate in that area. The mentioning of the blood supply is mere indicator that they did originate there.

I remind my opponent that the burden of proof is on him, and he must refute all scientifically correct interruptions.

2- Earthquakes and Mountains

I sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding or possible offending, that was a mistake from my part, but I did not in any way intend to trick my opponent or misinterpret the Quran.

But my point stands that the Quran does not reefer to earthquakes.

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet () ascended the mountain of Uhud and Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman were accompanying him. The mountain gave a shake (i.e. trembled underneath them) . The Prophet () said, "O Uhud ! Be calm." I think that the Prophet () hit it with his foot, adding, "For upon you there are none but a Prophet, a Siddiq and two martyrs."

Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 57, Hadith 49

This hadith shows that they did not believe mountains prevents earthquakes. What can it refeer to then?
I stumbled upon this hadith which is related to the verse:

Anas bin Malik narrated that:
The Prophet said: “When Allah created the earth, it started shaking. So He created the mountains, and said to them: ‘Upon it’ so it began to settle.
Vol. 6, Book 44, Hadith 3369

So it does not necessarily mean that it will stabilize the earth in the future. Now, is the long awaited scientific proof part:

Mountain belts, also called orogens, are the factories where stable continental crust is originated. They run along thousands of kilometres on the Earths surface and depict an almost linear geometry, occasionally interrupted by curved tracts. We search the importance of those curved tracts in the mountain belts, if they constitute a tectonic structure by themselves and, if so, what is its relevance. The relevance of the curved mountain belts is of timely importance in understanding whether they are caused by crustal or lithospheric processes, if they are the answer to sudden stress changes, if they provide efficient pathways for fluid circulation in the crust and, fundamentally, what processes cause them. [1]

continental shield, any of the large stable areas of low relief in the Earth’s crust that are composed of Precambrian crystalline rocks. The age of these rocks is in all cases greater than 540 million years, and radiometric age dating has revealed some that are as old as 2 to 3 billion years. [2]

The Precambrian Shield is an extensive structural unit of the Earth's crust composed of exposed basement rocks formed during the Archean or Proterozoic eons which together comprise the Precambrian Era ending 544 million years ago. Originally formed during several rounds of mountain-building activity, Shield rocks are now among the most stable on Earth. The Precambrian mountain belts have since eroded away, creating the low, rolling rock plain we see today. The best-known examples are the Canadian Shield and the Baltic Shield in Scandinavia. [3]

craton, the stable interior portion of a continent characteristically composed of ancient crystalline basement rock. The term craton is used to distinguish such regions from mobile geosynclinal troughs, which are linear belts of sediment accumulations subject to subsidence (i.e., downwarping). The extensive central cratons of continents may consist of both shields and platforms. A shield is that part of a craton in which (usually) Precambrian basement rocks crop out extensively at the surface. By contrast, in a platform the basement is overlain by horizontal or subhorizontal sediments. [4]

What is today a 3.5 billion year old craton was, 3.5 billion years ago, the roots of a major mountain range, indicating that orogeny driven by plate tectonics was already occurring well before 3.5 billion years ago. It is also interesting to note that isostasy calculations for a 13,000 foot ocean depth (the average depth of the abyssal plains of all major oceans today) yields a 50,000 foot maximum thickness for ocean deposited sediments. In many places on the earth, geologists have documented 50,000 feet of horizontally laid marine sediments, in some cases in formations as much as a billion years old, but nowhere has this author seen any reports of marine sedimentary deposits greater than 50,000 feet. This suggests that the ocean's depth has remained relatively constant, varying by only a few hundred feet during glacial cycles, for at least the last billion years, implying that the total volume of continental material on earth and the total volume of ocean water have remained essentially unchanged as well. [5]

Therefore, we can conclude that mountains were essential in the creation of the most stable parts of the crust. Debatably, making the earth habitable.

We can conclude that the Quran was correct about that statement. Thus, the resolution is nullified.

Debate Round No. 3


To win the debate, Con had to offer effective and well-supported refutations of the two cases. He didn't do that. The burden proof is on to me to provide two cases, but my opponent throughout the debate confused that with the BoP he had on his nonscientific objections, which he didn't defend or support but withdrew after each refutation.

Con shifted goalposts many times throughout the debate. He first claimed that semen vesicles are between the ribs and the spinal cord and even provided a schematic diagram to prove that. After I later disproved that claim showing exactly where the seminal vesicles are, he claimed that the location is actually metaphoric and not meant to be exact(I'll respond to this below). Then on mountains, he mistranslated the verse and withdrew his argument after the refutation to make another one which was even more fallacious.

Con also never provided scientific or peer-reviewed papers to support his objections. I've requested him three times so far to support his objections with such citations, but he completely ignored my requests. The "scientific" part in his previous round was actually from Britannica online, which is not a scientific source at all.

1- Semen Production

Surah 86:5-7 - Yusuf Ali's Translation: 'Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.'

Whether we consider the fluid being described to be semen or the secretion of seminal vessels, both of them don't lie in the region described by the Islamic scripture. If this was just metaphoric, then let us study this metaphor. First of, it was not a common phrase like "head between shoulders." It's referring to human anatomy and specifying exact locations. Secondly, there is no beauty in the description used. It's just confusing and inaccurate. . My opponent's "metaphor" claim is in not at all a "well-supported" or "effective" refutation. Therefore, I win the debate just by this flaw

My opponent then claims that my refutation fo Zakir Naik was by an argument from personal incredulity, even when he didn't adopt Naik's apologetic or showed the reader where I committed such a fallacy. I take it that my opponent is just trying to do some buck-belting to score a debate point.

Then he claims that there is no such thing as justified arguments from authority. I find it shocking that he makes such a statement. If the authority is not related to the subject, say, I said "The Church says that seminal vesicles are not between the spine and the ribs" then I'm making a fallacious appeal to authority. But I used an actual authority on the matter.. "Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the required two conditions (legitimate expertise and expert consensus) structurally required in the forms of a statistical syllogism."[1]

2- Earthquakes and Mountains

Con used another argument which was more fallacious than the one before, supported by sections from Britannica online which do not say anything that remotely resembles what he is saying.

He claims the formation of mountains somehow limits the occurrence of earthquakes. I consider this complete fabrication on my opponent's behalf, given that the sources he offered only talk of how the mountains are the causes of earthquakes. They don't say that mountains stop the earth from shaking. It is true that mountains are caused by plates pushing against each other, but that doesn't at all mean that mountains single the end of earthquakes. Many of the 10 largest earthquakes that ever happened occurred in mountainous regions[2].

        • No. 1: The great Chilean earthquake occurring 140 kms SSW of Concepción (Biobio), Chile, registered 9.5Mw – the largest earthquake ever recorded. (Andes mountain ra
        • No. 2: The Prince William Sound earthquake occurring 33.2 kms SE of Mt. Goode (Alaska), U.S.A., registered 9.2Mw - the second biggest earthquake recorded in the 20th century. (Mt Goode)
        • No. 6: The Ecuador earthquake occurring 138 kms W of Tortuga (Esmeraldas Provine), Ecuador, registered 8.8Mw. (Andes mountain range)

Let me post again what the verse says:

Surah 21:30 - Yusuf Ali's Translation: 'And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance.'

- -

I thank Con for this debate. It was really interesting.

[1] Salmon, M. H. (2006). Introduction to Critical Reasoning. Mason, OH: Thomson Wadsworth. pp. 118–9.


As agreed.

I thank my opponet for making this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
man the world for earth quake is zilzal.
and not used in that verse.
its word used means shaking.
if there would be no mountain no life would be possible the water and mud will shake with each other it will become mud shake.
observe the milk shake.
or put stones in water and see . or see the islands.
ALLAH said it prevent for world to shake.
not earth quake.
which means mountains creates deltas and mountains bed where life exist and even some time life exist below sea level only coz of mountains. and some how moon gravitaion.
well its long topic.
but i dont know what con said in debate.
dont give ur own meaning to verses take what is correct.
i am responding this coz voter consider this.
also back pro.
its also much long there keep in mind bone marrow is in back and which produse blood from boold every thing is created in body and so sperm cells and other body organs.
or simple sustenance is coz of that also there are man funtion which are situation near or at back place which i cant explain as not debating lol.
well i will do by my self soon.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
oh man where i was when this debate was happening.
its kids accusation who says there are fallacy in Qur'an or scientific error.
its the lack of knowledge who says that.
he need to upgrade his or her knowledge. science never proved Quran wrong never ever.
i have seen these arguments before and they are answered very well.
well con lost there must be some lacking in his knowledge how to respond this lol.
Posted by Dragonfang 4 years ago
Just a question.

Pro claimed that my argument is:

"He claims the formation of mountains somehow limits the occurrence of earthquakes."

While my conclusion was:

"Therefore, we can conclude that mountains were essential in the creation of the most stable parts of the crust. Debatably, making the earth habitable."

How did you bring the word "earthquake" from?
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 4 years ago

The first video is based on a pseudo-scientific claim about the location of seminal vesicles, and the second is based on nonscientific and unsupported claims about the roles of mountains.
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 4 years ago
The first video is as clear as it gets, it isn't talking about sperm, it's simply water. For the second video, this subject about mountains, you are taking it farther than it already is. The concept is simple and to the point. No need to go in depth.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 4 years ago
I remind my opponent that he only has to say "As agreed" in his last round.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 4 years ago
@IslamAhmadiyya, Both of your videos are based on pseudo-science and weak apologetics. I would respond to them if my opponent presented them.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 4 years ago
@ IslamAhmadiyya What videos? I'm sure I can refute their content. I'm a native Arabic speaker and I can understand the actual meanings of the verses I presented.
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 4 years ago
And Pro, about mountains, this video is a good clarification.

So there aren't any scientific flaws in the Qur'an, as far as your argument gets.

Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 4 years ago
Yusuf Ali is not a good translator.

By the way, regarding the semen argument, to Pro, you should check this video out.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided some good arguments from semen production and Earthquakes. In his first argument Con said the semen vessel was between the backbone and ribs. Con never provided a source for this and Pro showed this was wrong. Con was silent on that, instead he claimed Pro committed logical fallacies, but Pro refuted those claims. The next argument was from the mountains stopping earthquakes error. Con fell short on this one too. He never gave any scientific source to support him, he also claimed the Qur'an never stated it in a plural sense. Pro demolished it with Arabic and a common sense reading of the verse. Con then gave sources supporting Pro, saying the mountains cause Earthquakes claiming it somehow prevents them. Arguments clearly goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm too biased against con's opening statement, to actually vote on this.