Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Qur'an has no inconsistencies

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 3:03:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Since some people here indirectly challenged me to debate this, I'd now like to debate it on the forums, and later as an official debate.

I challenge anybody to find any scientific error or contradiction in the Qur'an. If you find one, and I have no rebuttals, I'll admit that the Qur'an is not the word of God. I'll respond to each of your claims tomorrow.

[Qur'an 4:82] Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah [God], they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy [i.e. inconsistencies, errors].
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 3:13:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Answering-islam.com? Alright. I have read much on that site and it is worthless. I'm sure you just skimmed one page for 10 sec. and then became confident that the Qur'an has inconsistencies. How about reading a few verses yourself and wrote them down here, one by one?

Since you did not write anything yourself, but provided a link to a site like that, I'd give you a link too:

http://www.answering-christianity.com...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 3:17:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 3:07:27 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Also, rebuttal to your embryo claim: http://www.answering-islam.org...
You do know that those who claim that the Qur'an does not describe embryology in a correct way are usually Christian theologists, not scientists? I bet you don't know much about the development process of a fetus, yet you come up with those sites and believe you are bringing clear evidence.

Scientists who read the Qur'an convert to Islam in most cases. The Qur'an describes embryology better than any book today, simply because it told about it 14 centuries ago, not 10-20 years ago.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 3:23:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm an Atheist. Try and disprove my scripture. Oh wait, all of mine is modern ;)
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 3:25:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 3:23:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I'm an Atheist. Try and disprove my scripture. Oh wait, all of mine is modern ;)
Your scripture is "On the Origin of Species", and is not an established scientific fact, actually not a fact at all, but a theory. I have yet to see a book called "The Fact of Evolution".

This discussion is not about Atheism, but about inconsistencies in the Qur'an. Leave other subjects out of this discussion please.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 3:30:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Fine, some interesting ones:

- Allah, Adam, and the Angels: There are a great number of problems and inconsistencies between the several accounts of Adam's creation, Allah's command to prostrate before Adam, Satans refusal, etc. [http://www.answering-islam.org...]

- What will be the food for the people in Hell?: The food for the people in Hell will be only "Dhari" [Sura 88:6], or only foul pus from the washing of wounds [S. 69:36], or will they also get to eat from the tree of Zaqqum [S. 37:66]? Together, these verses constitute three contradictions. [http://www.answering-islam.org...]

- Contradicting creations stories (All wrong by the way)

Could it be from earth?

11:61 It is He Who hath produced you from the earth

Or dry clay (Arabic Salsaal)?

15:26,28,33 We created man from sounding clay
17:61 ... Thou didst create from clay
32:7 He began the creation of man from clay

Did we come from nothing?


19:67 We created him before out of nothing

No, we did not!

52:35 Were they created of nothing?

Did we come from mud?

23:12 We created man from a product of wet earth (loam) (Pickthall)
23:12 Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay)
38:71 I am about to create a mortal out of mire

Or water?

25:54 It is He Who has created man from water (see also 21:30, 24:45)

Could it be dust?

3:59 He created (Jesus) out of dust
30:20 He created you from dust
35:11 Allah did create you from dust ....

Perhaps we arose from the dead or from one person?

30:19 It is He who brings out the living from the dead
39:6 He created you from a single Person (see also 4:1)
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 3:31:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 3:25:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/28/2009 3:23:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I'm an Atheist. Try and disprove my scripture. Oh wait, all of mine is modern ;)
Your scripture is "On the Origin of Species", and is not an established scientific fact, actually not a fact at all, but a theory. I have yet to see a book called "The Fact of Evolution".

This discussion is not about Atheism, but about inconsistencies in the Qur'an. Leave other subjects out of this discussion please.

Small changes occur in species over time, no? This is micro evolution. Macro evolution is micro evolution over time. I'm pretty sure 5 year olds cans understand out.

Besides, a lot of things in science are theories, including gravity. Just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's automatically wrong.

Besides, qu'ran, nice story, but where's the proof that a tribe of thousands wandered the Sinai desert for 40 years? Archaeological evidence should be there but it isn't.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 3:36:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 3:25:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/28/2009 3:23:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I'm an Atheist. Try and disprove my scripture. Oh wait, all of mine is modern ;)
Your scripture is "On the Origin of Species", and is not an established scientific fact, actually not a fact at all, but a theory. I have yet to see a book called "The Fact of Evolution".

This discussion is not about Atheism, but about inconsistencies in the Qur'an. Leave other subjects out of this discussion please.

First, there is no Atheist scripture. That is an absurd notion. Second, the term Theory ought not be taken so lightly. The truth is, evolution is a fact. We have and can observe indirectly in the long term, and directly in the short term (in many cases). To call it "just" a theory outlines your ignorance on the matter.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 3:45:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 3:36:21 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 10/28/2009 3:25:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/28/2009 3:23:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I'm an Atheist. Try and disprove my scripture. Oh wait, all of mine is modern ;)
Your scripture is "On the Origin of Species", and is not an established scientific fact, actually not a fact at all, but a theory. I have yet to see a book called "The Fact of Evolution".

This discussion is not about Atheism, but about inconsistencies in the Qur'an. Leave other subjects out of this discussion please.

First, there is no Atheist scripture. That is an absurd notion. Second, the term Theory ought not be taken so lightly. The truth is, evolution is a fact. We have and can observe indirectly in the long term, and directly in the short term (in many cases). To call it "just" a theory outlines your ignorance on the matter.

As much as I agree with your side, you're wrong about evolution. I agree it isn't "just" a theory but evolution is not a fact.

Isn't a theory a hypothesis that has been proven. I don't believe we have proved macroevolution, so in itself isn't "The Theory of Evolution" an incorrect nomenclature?

I do agree that saying something is "just" a theory is incorrect because a theory has been proven.

I'm not the most knowledgable on all this so please let me know where I screwed up.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 3:46:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Isn't a theory a hypothesis that has been proven?

Fixed.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 3:46:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 3:30:32 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Fine, some interesting ones:

- Allah, Adam, and the Angels: There are a great number of problems and inconsistencies between the several accounts of Adam's creation, Allah's command to prostrate before Adam, Satans refusal, etc. [http://www.answering-islam.org...]

- What will be the food for the people in Hell?: The food for the people in Hell will be only "Dhari" [Sura 88:6], or only foul pus from the washing of wounds [S. 69:36], or will they also get to eat from the tree of Zaqqum [S. 37:66]? Together, these verses constitute three contradictions. [http://www.answering-islam.org...]
I have very short time to respond to you for today, but those are links, so here is a link back: http://answering-christianity.com...
- Contradicting creations stories (All wrong by the way)

Could it be from earth?

11:61 It is He Who hath produced you from the earth

Or dry clay (Arabic Salsaal)?

15:26,28,33 We created man from sounding clay
17:61 ... Thou didst create from clay
32:7 He began the creation of man from clay

Did we come from nothing?


19:67 We created him before out of nothing

No, we did not!

52:35 Were they created of nothing?

Did we come from mud?

23:12 We created man from a product of wet earth (loam) (Pickthall)
23:12 Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay)
38:71 I am about to create a mortal out of mire

Or water?

25:54 It is He Who has created man from water (see also 21:30, 24:45)

Could it be dust?

3:59 He created (Jesus) out of dust
30:20 He created you from dust
35:11 Allah did create you from dust ....

Perhaps we arose from the dead or from one person?

30:19 It is He who brings out the living from the dead
39:6 He created you from a single Person (see also 4:1)
1. [Qur'an 19:67] "Does not man remember that We created him before, when he was nothing?"

Not out of nothing, but when he was nothing, i.e. nonexistent.

2. We were created from clay, water, and dust. This is not a contradiction, but a contradistinction. If I told you that the human body consisted of flesh, I wouldn't be wrong. If I told you the human body consisted of water, I wouldn't be wrong. If I told you it consisted of bones, I wouldn't be wrong. That is because it consists of all those things. The Qur'an didn't say that man was created only from water, or only from clay, or only from dust, but from water, clay, and dust.

3. Regarding 39:6, this is what it says: "He created you (all) from a single person: then created, of like nature, his mate; and he sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs: He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. such is Allah, your Lord and Cherisher: to Him belongs (all) dominion. There is no god but He: then how are ye turned away (from your true Centre)?"

Is there something wrong here? Not at all. By the way, if you read the verse, you'll realize how scientifically it is correct and miraculous, telling us that we are created in stages, in threefold darkness. Nobody except the manufacturer of a product is the first one who describes the product.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 3:55:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 3:46:40 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/28/2009 3:30:32 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

Could it be from earth?

11:61 It is He Who hath produced you from the earth

Or dry clay (Arabic Salsaal)?

15:26,28,33 We created man from sounding clay
17:61 ... Thou didst create from clay
32:7 He began the creation of man from clay

Did we come from nothing?


19:67 We created him before out of nothing

No, we did not!

52:35 Were they created of nothing?

Did we come from mud?

23:12 We created man from a product of wet earth (loam) (Pickthall)
23:12 Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay)
38:71 I am about to create a mortal out of mire

Or water?

25:54 It is He Who has created man from water (see also 21:30, 24:45)

Could it be dust?

3:59 He created (Jesus) out of dust
30:20 He created you from dust
35:11 Allah did create you from dust ....

Perhaps we arose from the dead or from one person?

30:19 It is He who brings out the living from the dead
39:6 He created you from a single Person (see also 4:1)
1. [Qur'an 19:67] "Does not man remember that We created him before, when he was nothing?"

Not out of nothing, but when he was nothing, i.e. nonexistent.

This implies man was nothing before he was something, which means he existed somehow before he was physically created. Explain.


2. We were created from clay, water, and dust. This is not a contradiction, but a contradistinction. If I told you that the human body consisted of flesh, I wouldn't be wrong. If I told you the human body consisted of water, I wouldn't be wrong. If I told you it consisted of bones, I wouldn't be wrong. That is because it consists of all those things. The Qur'an didn't say that man was created only from water, or only from clay, or only from dust, but from water, clay, and dust.

What part of my body is made from clay and dust?


3. Regarding 39:6, this is what it says: "He created you (all) from a single person: then created, of like nature, his mate; and he sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs: He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. such is Allah, your Lord and Cherisher: to Him belongs (all) dominion. There is no god but He: then how are ye turned away (from your true Centre)?"

Is there something wrong here? Not at all. By the way, if you read the verse, you'll realize how scientifically it is correct and miraculous, telling us that we are created in stages, in threefold darkness. Nobody except the manufacturer of a product is the first one who describes the product.

In stages? Name the official stages of pregnancies. Besides, it's pretty obvious to anyone children grow and are born in the woman (Miscarriages happened alot in those days, not too hard to figure it out) and that it's dark in there.

And send us down in pairs of cattle? Explain this too.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 4:30:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is consistent. Does that make it any more credible as an accurate account of past events? No. So why does this even matter. If it is consistent, then woohoo, you get +1 over the Christians.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 5:05:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 3:30:32 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:


Wow, panda, that was actually a pretty dumb example. Out of all the things you could come up with... mud often contains clay in it, and "earth" can correctly describe either. Mud, earth, and clay are even basically synonyms. Out of all of the contradictions you could most likely find in a religious text, that isn't even a contradiction.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 5:10:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 3:45:36 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
As much as I agree with your side, you're wrong about evolution. I agree it isn't "just" a theory but evolution is not a fact.

Isn't a theory a hypothesis that has been proven. I don't believe we have proved macroevolution, so in itself isn't "The Theory of Evolution" an incorrect nomenclature?

I do agree that saying something is "just" a theory is incorrect because a theory has been proven.

I'm not the most knowledgable on all this so please let me know where I screwed up.

Here is a decent short article about 'fact' and 'theory', and how it relates to evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
In short, evolution is very muuch a fact, as well as a theory. There is no doubt that it is a fact. The question is only about how it works, not whether it occurs at all.

Macroevolution is just microevolution over time. Macrovolution has mountains of evidence in its favor. We have indirectly observed it through the fossil record. Do yourself a favor and look into the fossil record of the Whale, and the fossil record of the horse. There are plenty of examples, but those two are the easiest to see and access. Of course, macroevolution is such a slow process that no one can observe it directly like we can (and have) with microevolution.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 5:13:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ok, I'm butting in for a minute. I'm not gonna lie. Alot of what I have found in the Qur'an is actually quite accurate when comparing it to today's science. That is really quite incredible, considering it was written over a thousand years ago. Somebody actually sent me an interesting article on this very topic as I'm currently reading the Qur'an. However, there are skeptics out there who still believe that these particular verses were interpreted in a certain way to fit modern science.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 5:19:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Mizra, Vi_Veri challenged you to a debate on this... If you're so confident, why not just take her up on her offer instead of letting other people prove you wrong here first?
President of DDO
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 5:26:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 5:10:10 PM, JBlake wrote:
Macroevolution is just microevolution over time. Macrovolution has mountains of evidence in its favor. We have indirectly observed it through the fossil record. Do yourself a favor and look into the fossil record of the Whale, and the fossil record of the horse. There are plenty of examples, but those two are the easiest to see and access. Of course, macroevolution is such a slow process that no one can observe it directly like we can (and have) with microevolution.

Quick correction. We have infact observed macroevolution, since macroevolution is just a fancy word for speciation. We have observed speciation in many species of plants as well as a few animals.

I had a discussion with a muslim before. He claimed that mountains prevented earthquakes, as it says in the Quran. I told him that earthquakes are the most common thing around mountains, especially new mountains located near faults. He then told me that the speed of light is revealed in the quran, and sent me a slideshow. I disproved him on that one too. He then came back with how the Quran reveals that Moonlight was revealed in the bible, and that no one could have possibly known this. I pointed out that Aristotle knew this. He then came back with how the shape of the earth was mentioned in the Quran. I came back with telling him that Aristotle also knew this.

There is no end. They just keep coming, and we scientists just keep shooting them down.

He also accused me of trying to be smarter than these scientists who made such discoveries in the Quran. I havent heard from him since.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 5:30:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 5:13:11 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Ok, I'm butting in for a minute. I'm not gonna lie. Alot of what I have found in the Qur'an is actually quite accurate when comparing it to today's science. That is really quite incredible, considering it was written over a thousand years ago. Somebody actually sent me an interesting article on this very topic as I'm currently reading the Qur'an. However, there are skeptics out there who still believe that these particular verses were interpreted in a certain way to fit modern science.

No, nothing in the Quran is accurate. And this is the problem with taking verses and matching them to discoveries. Hindsight bias is 20/20. The same could be said of Nostradamus and his prophecies. However, i doubt anyone would make the claim that Nostradamus was a Prophet of god... Although some may claim that he was the prophet of the devil...
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 12:34:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 5:40:19 PM, JBlake wrote:
In which species of plants and animals have we observed it?

Look at insect and smaller critter research, since they have the generation turnover making it viable, talkorigins has a good list. Some plants do it par course of reproduction in a process called ploidy change.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 6:04:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 3:55:59 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
This implies man was nothing before he was something, which means he existed somehow before he was physically created. Explain.
For example, we know that a semen cell is nothing, but it can turn into a human. Before turning into a human, it is simply nothing. Humans were something in God's plan.
What part of my body is made from clay and dust?
First, you don't have to be like an ingredient in order to be consisting of it. Second, clay contains many things our body needs in order to survive, e.g. iron and magnesium.
In stages? Name the official stages of pregnancies. Besides, it's pretty obvious to anyone children grow and are born in the woman (Miscarriages happened alot in those days, not too hard to figure it out) and that it's dark in there.
There are three pregnancy stages. It's not hard to look it up on Wikipedia or Google.

http://www.pregnancy-period.com...
And send us down in pairs of cattle? Explain this too.
Not humans, but cattle. God sent down cattle.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 6:05:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 5:05:01 PM, Harlan wrote:
Wow, panda, that was actually a pretty dumb example. Out of all the things you could come up with... mud often contains clay in it, and "earth" can correctly describe either. Mud, earth, and clay are even basically synonyms. Out of all of the contradictions you could most likely find in a religious text, that isn't even a contradiction.
Exactly. Clay can be in the form of mud, and clay is actually earth, but another type. There's no contradiction here.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 6:11:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 5:13:11 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
... However, there are skeptics out there who still believe that these particular verses were interpreted in a certain way to fit modern science.
One group of people will always be against something, and come up with all kinds of excuses. The Qur'an has remained the same since it existed, and nobody should deny that. There's more evidence that the Qur'an has remained the same than there is about the soundness of theory of evolution.

You don't have to be anything else [i.e. a liar] except who you are in order to understand the scientific verses in the Qur'an. When a verse as clear as one saying that the sun swims through the universe, for example, who needs to tell you that it's not how it should be interpreted? I'm glad you read the Qur'an yourself and understand what the verses mean. In these days, if you have some knowledge about science, you can easily discover scientific verses in the Qur'an you haven't heard of. For example, if you know that the universe is expanding, and you read verse 47 of chapter 51, "...We have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it..." -- you'll realize what the verse speaks about. There's no other way to interpret that verse, except by lying.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 6:15:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 5:19:27 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Mizra, Vi_Veri challenged you to a debate on this... If you're so confident, why not just take her up on her offer instead of letting other people prove you wrong here first?
I want more than one person to write what they claim are contradictions or scientific errors. I will debate with Vi_Very if necessary, but more people first.

And if you're so confident that the Qur'an has some inconsistencies, then you should write something here.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 6:19:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 5:13:11 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Ok, I'm butting in for a minute. I'm not gonna lie. Alot of what I have found in the Qur'an is actually quite accurate when comparing it to today's science. That is really quite incredible, considering it was written over a thousand years ago. Somebody actually sent me an interesting article on this very topic as I'm currently reading the Qur'an. However, there are skeptics out there who still believe that these particular verses were interpreted in a certain way to fit modern science.
By the way, there are a bit more than 6,000 verses in the Qur'an, and over 1,000 of them contain scientific points. Interpreting all of them wrong would be a hard challenge. We Muslims would never make false claims out of the Qur'an.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 6:42:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/28/2009 5:26:49 PM, tkubok wrote:
I had a discussion with a muslim before. He claimed that mountains prevented earthquakes, as it says in the Quran. I told him that earthquakes are the most common thing around mountains, especially new mountains located near faults.
Wrong. The Qur'an does not say that the mountains prevent earthquakes, but it says that mountains prevent the earth from shaking, which - I hope you don't mind looking it up - is an established scientific fact. The mountains are stabilizing the earth.

[Qur'an 31:10] "He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs."

[Qur'an 21:31] "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."
He then told me that the speed of light is revealed in the quran, and sent me a slideshow. I disproved him on that one too.
The speed of light is not mentioned in the Qur'an as any other scientific verse. People calculate it by using what some verses say about so-and-so many years etcetera, so it doesn't mean that it's right. You may possibly calculate the speed of light using some verses from the Qur'an, but the Qur'an itself does not say what the speed of light is, so you cannot argue against it.
He then came back with how the Quran reveals that Moonlight was revealed in the bible, and that no one could have possibly known this. I pointed out that Aristotle knew this.
I think you mean the Qur'an, not the Bible.

You have to understand that not all, but most of the scientific verses in the Qur'an could not have been discovered 14 centuries ago or earlier. For example, many people from ancient times used to observe the moon etcetera, and with good observation you can conclude that the moon reflects light. However, each one of them made statements contradictory to modern science today, but some of them are correct. The moon having reflected light could be observed many years ago, but comparing it to all the other scientific verses that could not have been discovered 14 centuries ago that are found in the Qur'an, and yet aren't contradictory to science, whilst ancient men's scientific statements are some percentages correct, and some percentages totally incorrect [e.g. 50/50]. 80% of the Qur'an's scientific statements are today established scientific facts, but the rest 20% are not disproved at all, but in order to explain them, we must advance in technology. For example, life on other planets is mentioned in the Qur'an, not necessarily as advanced as humans, but perhaps in micro form. Any fair-minded person today knows that there is some form of life on other planets, so the rest 20% are most likely to be confirmed. In fact, now that some bacteria on Mars are being discovered, it's becoming less than 20%.
He then came back with how the shape of the earth was mentioned in the Quran. I came back with telling him that Aristotle also knew this.
Aristotle said the Earth was round. The Qur'an says the Earth is oval. Which one is correct? Modern science has revealed that the Earth is not like a ball, but like a ball stretched out, so it is oval and not round.
There is no end. They just keep coming, and we scientists just keep shooting them down.
You can play with words but not cover the scientific verses in the Qur'an. Luckily, we have many people who are not Muslims, yet they do not deny these facts. You can spend as much of your time "shooting them down", but they will always stand clear.
He also accused me of trying to be smarter than these scientists who made such discoveries in the Quran. I havent heard from him since.
That's irrelevant. What one guy said does not matter at all. We Muslims are very careful when explaining the verses in the Qur'an, so he may very well let the scientists argue about it, not himself.