Good evening everybody and welcome to Modern Day Debate. Tonight we're going to be debating, is the Quran scientific and to start us off, we have Nadir. So Nadir, the floor is yours for 10 minutes and thank you so much for being here. Well, thank you and welcome Mark. You know, there's very few people would be sitting in Mark's position, especially among the atheists because a good number of them are already convinced with a lot of the Quran and science narrative. I've opened up my debates with this every time and now I have living proof here. Mark Reid, who has accepted from the last debate, which I did, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad corrected six scientific errors in the Bible. Although he says it's not miraculous, but here's my point. That's why, you know, the people with a bigger YouTube channel, they're not going to do a challenge of Quran and science anymore because it has done catastrophic damage to their careers and they don't want their YouTube followers to know they don't have good answers. And that's exactly what we're going to see tonight. That this Quran is a scientific miracle. And so I don't want to just keep bragging and trash talking. I want to get into the actual arguments, which atheists agree with and run away from. So one of the scientific miracles, which I will not talk about today is because my opponent already agrees. See, I haven't I have been saying this all along. They already accept this, that that Muhammad corrected six scientific errors in the Bible. How this relates to atheists is just a book. It doesn't matter if it's a book of Aristotle or it's a Bible. The question is, how could a man do that?  All that's going to be squashed tonight. So let's let's get I'm just going to share my desktop and let's look at these verses, which agree with modern science. I'm going to go ahead and share my little desktop over here. It's ready for you when you're ready. OK. OK, I can pause your timer when you bring that up. OK, yeah, now I think I'm ready. Here we go. All right.  This is from the Stanford University article. What can we say about dead sperm? Is that it determines whether a baby will be a boy or a girl? So surprise, surprise, it is actually the male sperm, which determines the gender of the baby. Now, this wasn't known, you know, hundreds of years ago. In fact, when you look through history, you look at what the ancient people said. They said stuff like, for example, I'm just going to quote Aristotle over here. He believed the male is characterized by an abundance of superior element fire. That's how you get a male baby. Romans and hypocrites said the male offspring come from the right side of the male and the female from the left side. So this is I'm just showing you what the people of past said about these things. Ibn Taymiah even said, well, there's has no natural cause. And the list goes on. So now what's shocking is if Muhammad was just copying from ancient sources as what Mark would have us to believe, he would copy or some something along the lines of these scientific errors, which we find over here. Let us go to chapter number fifty four verse forty five. It says over there and it is he who created the two mates, the male and the female. So it's now talking about gender from a sperm drop when it is emitted. Did you see that? This is this is in complete harmony with what we are finding with modern science says, so why didn't the Quran say the Quran was just, well, you know, just talking about all of humanity or something like that? Why wouldn't it say that? Why would the Quran specify the male and the female from the sperm drop? So that is in line with what we know today from modern science. Now, just because we find one or two verses agreeing with modern science, we shouldn't just jump to the conclusion that it is a scientific miracle. So what should you do? You should call the cops. What cop stands for? It stands for, well, it could be a coincidence. Maybe it's just a luck or some poetic expression. Maybe it's maybe it's the O stands for it was observed. Maybe it was plagiarized. Maybe Muhammad himself was a scientist. So so what we are going to find over here is that cops is not going to explain the scientific miracles or the scientifically correct statements in the Quran because for the next the next reason, which I'm going to show you is that they appear in triplets. That means three scientifically correct statements on the issue of marine biology. Let's take a look at that. So really, the scientific miracle is in the frequency of it. It's in the how many I mean, if it's just like one or two, yeah, you can call the cops and you can explain it away. But when you see it happening again and again and again, you can't call the cops on that anymore because those explanations don't make any more sense. So let's take a look at marine biology, three statements about marine biology. So the first one, let's first give you what science says. And again, please just hit pause on your YouTube channel just to get my references. So what science says is that oceans have barriers in the in the water. They're called the picnic line. And here's my reference from over here. This is from from Rogers, Roger Williams University. It says over here. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. This is from NASA. It says picnic line act as a barrier in the water. Now, let's just read chapter 55 verse 19 and 20. He merged the two seas converging them together. Between them is a barrier word for word agreement with modern science. Again, we can call the cops. Maybe he was referring to something else. Maybe he was referring to islands. In fact, he read the Tuftsir and he even said that maybe he was referring to islands or something like that is the barrier is he. So is this a coincidence that we find this type of scientific agreement? So let's now, but wait a second, he's got more to say in oceans. Science also today tells us that there are invisible ways hidden beneath the surface of the ocean. So within the ocean itself, there are ways. These are known as internal waves. Let's read what the Quran has to say about that inside chapter 24 verse 40. In the vast ocean in notices says in the vast ocean covered by waves above, which are waves, that is a word for word agreement with modern science. So now we've got two scientifically correct statements. So now we're going to get to the third one on marine biology. And that's talking about and this is probably something everybody knows. At the bottom of the ocean, there's no light. Here we can see from the website, Ocean Exploration Exploration and Research. It says over here and below 1000 meters, receiving no light from the surface. And of course, the Titanic, it's it's there, you know, when it's complete darkness, the Quran says inside chapter 24 verse 40 and is talking about the disbeliever and to whom Allah has not granted light for him. There is no light. So basically it starts off by talking about those internal ways or the likeness or the likeness of the disbeliever darkness within fathoms of seas, which is covered by ways upon which are ways and clouds and goes on. And so the one were to put out his hand there and he could hardly see it. And then it continues to say for that who Allah has not granted light for him, there is no light. So it's comparing to the bottom to the deep ocean. There is no light, clear comparison. So here is what Mark has to answer. Forget about whether the Quran agrees with science or not, everybody acknowledges that. The question is, how do you ramble about something which you know nothing about? If Mohammed was the author of the Quran and he's ignorant of marine biology, how is it that he utters three scientifically correct statements in triplets without uttering a scientific error? If Mark is not able to present a reasonable explanation, then that's it. That's clearly proved it's a it's a scientific miracle. So we have the six corrections from the from correcting the Bible. You see, he says, well, maybe you could have copied it or something. Well, OK, if if Mohammed was doing research, then research happens to trial and error. Get some right, get some wrong. So that you would not correct six scientific errors. You'd correct me like one or two or three, get four wrong, something like that. Trial and error. But six corrections and not a single error proves it to be that this is not some kind of research or if you're copying, then you will copy the wrong scientifically incorrect statements from those books into the Quran. So if you are doing scientific research on oceanography, and by the way, all of those scientific facts, which I pointed out, was discovered with technology, with advanced technology. So if people think, oh, I'll just go to the ocean. I'll just figure out how this stuff works. OK, it was all discovered by using modern latest techniques of technological advances. Thirty seconds. If you're if you're doing this type of research, you're going to find scientific errors pertaining to seas. So if he is not able to show a scientific errors pertaining to seas, then his theory of borrowing or research will fail. So I believe that's my time. All right. Well, thank you so much. That is your time. Let's end the screen share. And then we're going to put it over to Mark for his opening there. And I will set the time time time time. All right. Before I get us demonetized, I will let everybody know before you start there, Mark, welcome to modern day debate. If you haven't been here before, hit the like button, hit the sub. We really appreciate it. We are a neutral debate platform hosting debates on science, politics and religion. You name it, you're going to find it here. And we hope you all feel welcome. And let's kick it over to Mark's intro. So Mark, 10 minutes on the floor. Thank you so much, Ryan. And thanks to you, Nadia, for participating in this debate. The topic is is the Quran scientific, scientifically accurate, sorry. And I'll be taking the negative position. The reason why I hang on a second there goes my screen. OK, the reason why I took this has been it is been claiming that atheists won't face him. So I'm sorry, Nadia, you literally asked for it. OK, so just keep that in mind. So first thing we have to do is discuss what we mean by scientifically accurate. I think people will generally have a good idea what that means, but bear with me because I want to really clarify and pin down exactly what that means. So first off, we have to think about what what does scientific entail? Sorry, I'm just having a little problem with my slides. I do apologize. Just one second. There we go. OK. So the definition of scientific basically is reliant on what is science as scientific related to a pertain to the implementation of science. Here are a few definitions and I know definitions are not prescriptive, but it gives us an idea of what scientific means related to science. So obviously, we have to ask what is science? Science or methodological naturalism is a process of investigation of the natural world. There are multiple scientific methods, but they all follow a basic pattern of observation, research, hypothesis, testing, analysis and reporting. The current does not follow this procedure and does not falsify test of any kind of scientific reporting mechanism in which to justify their beliefs as scientific or show any methodology that would fit this criteria. What's worse is that many of the claims in the Quran rely on dogma, which is completely antithetical to the scientific methodologies. And this is basically a diagram how the scientific process does work. So to be fair, there is something called in science called demarcation, which is a great area between what is science and what is not science. It typically classify what falls into science and what falls into pseudoscience. Karl Popper writes extensively on falsifiability, which he considered to be a hallmark of science. However, it may be more nuanced than this. Falsifiability could be said to be an indication of scientific criterion being met. However, there are some classical scientific endeavors that may not make these criteria like ancient Chinese astrology, for instance, who made incredibly detailed records of star movements that we draw on this to this day. However, Sean Rafferty made a particularly astute observation that non-scientific statements will be backed by selected evidences removed from context. Now, I want to read this out because I think it will have particular significance in this debate, especially what Nadir says. Even for those subfields, where there is a significant element of interpretation, those interpretations are still based on and constrained by physical evidence and interpretations are always provisional, pending possible refutation by contradictory evidence. Pseudoscience, by comparison, is scornful of evidence. The pseudoscientist reaches a preferred conclusion in advance, then selects evidence often removed from any relevant context to lend supposed support for their conclusions. Often, the precensived conclusion is one that justifies and closely held identity or ideology. Contradictory evidence is waived away or ignored. And as a last resort, one can always claim conspiracy to keep pseudoscientific ideas suppressed, and I think we'll see a lot of that in this debate. So this is theories of ether and electricity. It's a book from 1910. There's some things in it which are still pertinent to science today, like galvanism and perhaps some conduction in solutions of gases. The problem is that it's no longer a scientifically accurate book. It's still a scientific book because it still meets the falsification criteria that Popper outlined, but it's no longer scientifically accurate because it gains information that does not align with the modern scientific understanding of the field. So what is it? Let's wrap it up. What does it mean to be scientifically accurate? In order for us to call a book scientifically accurate, it does have to be in line with modern scientific principles. Secondly, the information gathered must have been acquired scientifically, or at least the knowledge if we acknowledge the problem of demarcation through empirical study and testing. For instance, I could guess that Nadia owns a cat. I could be 100 percent accurate about that statement, but the knowledge would not be gathered scientifically and therefore could not be said to be scientifically accurate, even if I observed there was something like cat hair on Nadia's shoulder. This would not be scientifically gathered as I have no falsification criteria for the hair. I cannot test the validity and I could be 100 percent correct. Nadia could own a cat, but it's still not scientifically accurate. If I went over to where Nadia lives and tested the hair or performed a survey to see whether a cat went in and out, now that may be scientifically accurate. The book on the screen is example of a scientifically accurate text textbook. However, it's important to realize that it's a fifth edition of the book, which is a whole market of scientifically accurate books. They update when the scientific understanding is developed. So my first question to Nadia is when will the Quran will be updated to exclude the monumental errors in the text? And don't worry, I will go through some of them later. So the question comes up. Why do Muslims like Nadia want the Quran to be a science book? Science books are incredible under scrutiny to be both accurate and valid in substance and methodology, which obviously the proponents of the Quran do not wish to be under. It has to be updated to the current scientific understanding, which Muslims do not want to do. The reason is because they want to steal credibility for the religion of Israel from the bowl of science, trying to associate themselves with the scientific methods. This is a flawed effort and will only serve to undermine the credibility of their own book. Even if the Quran can give some information is accurate, we have to address the elephant in the room. The errors and boy, are there errors. So many errors. First, the formation of the Earth. It was not six days. The current scientific understanding is that Earth took at least three million years to form, not two days as the Quran claims. This is so wildly inaccurate. I cannot even express how wrong it is. Humans created from clay. There is no scientific theory that concludes humans were made from dust, clay or any other mineral substance whatsoever. Humans developed according to science, along with every other living creature, according to the process of evolution. The idea that we are somehow pottery is complete nonsense and no scientifically accurate textbook would ever have this in. So, gins, let's talk about gins. Claims of supernatural angel like demons that torment humans or were converted by Muhammad at some point. I'm almost embarrassed to point out that supernatural entities formed of fire that try to eavesdrop on the secrets of heaven to be driven away by meteorites is unscientific. I mean, do I really have to say this? Is this what we are claiming to be a scientifically accurate book? This is this is fantasy. And so speaking of gins, at least a couple of places the Quran speaks to shooting stars as being missiles to drive out devils. Firstly, shooting stars are not actual stars like the Quran. Sixty seven five says they are they are meteorites. And secondly, what false ability falsifiability criterion does an idea have for meteorites driving away supernatural devils? Perhaps he could walk us through how that would be scientifically falsified and his scientific accuracy on that one. So if you hear the Quran talks about semen being produced between the backbone of the ribs, any medical student that describes semen as coming between the backbone and the ribs would receive an instant fail on their anatomy exam. This is the kind of inaccurate information that a biology and anatomy textbook would never have in it. The claim in Quran 3636, it says that everything has pairs and ignores pathogenesis. That's when an asexual organism can produce an egg and fertilize it itself, that they are basically a virgin birth. It ignores bacteria splitting.  This is a scientifically inaccurate statement about sexuality that we now know to be 100 percent untrue. The third one must be my favorite. Hearts to reason was the hallmark of cardio centrism where people believe that the source of cognition was and reason thinking was the heart. Now we know that getting a heart transplant, it won't actually change your mind. And of course, everyone's favorite, the moon splitting in two. Not only does it say the moon has split in two, it provides no kind of methodology. You know this and why any kind of scientific information. I also want to add that this verse talks of miracles and magic, both of which do not fall into scientific endeavors as scientists concerned with natural phenomenon. So in conclusion, the Quran is not scientific. It does not follow nor has any never followed any kind of naturalistic, empirical methodology and is not accurate. So it fails on both counts. It gets major scientific facts wrong. And yeah, I'll leave it there. Thank you so much for your time and I'll pass it back to Ryan. All right. Excellent. Thank you so much, Mark, for your opening statement. We are going to kick it into two minute back and forth, everybody. So I'll just let you know both of these speakers, if you like what you're hearing, they're going to be linked in our description along with the podcast. So if you're watching on podcast, you'll see both of our speakers linked there. You can find more of them there if you like it. And if you want to ask them a question, if you're thinking, oh, I really want to grill them on this, get that in as a super chat and they'll get read as priority or tag me, Ryan, the mod in the live chat. And I'll make my I'll make a little list. If we get time, we'll read them out. So two minutes on the floor, Nadir, and it's all yours. Yeah, as I have already mentioned to you in the beginning, he will have no response for the scientifically accurate statements in the Koran. Rather, he heavily relied on quibbling about what scientific means. And we can get to that. But if what I have presented about the agreement to science is not scientific, according to them, then how are the alleged scientific errors scientific to Mark's definition? So he's contradicting himself over there. So let's not quibble about what scientific means here, Mark. So here's how I'm going to finish, Mark. The Koran is in complete harmony with modern science. He gave this shotgun blast of that. Koran is an error over here. Koran is an error over here. I will give you remember, I told you I'm going to give you the exact argument which the atheists have all ran away from. And here is the argument. I'm just going to share my desktop right over here. Look, when you show that there's an alleged scientific error in the Koran, all you got to do. Here's a scientific fact. I'm sorry, what people of the past have said about inaccurately have said about science, show the verse and then give us an article. Here's the article which contradicts that. Let's let's see how this works. And I will challenge you. Give us all tonight this article or scientific fact which contradicts the Koran and you will not be able to do so. So let me just show you what I mean by that. Let's look at the screen. The Roman physician Galen said blood formed in the liver. Science, red blood cells start as immature cells in the bone marrow. Direct contradiction. So this is my challenge for you rather than shotgun blasting us with all the air here, air here, air here, do exactly what I have just shown you. And you will never be able to do that. So show us a verse of the Koran and where science kind of gets. And I will I will answer each one one by one. Go ahead. All right, let's end the screen share. And thank you so much, Nadir. And over to you, Mark, two minutes. Oh, I didn't shock no blast. I just brought up my favorite errors.  So that's not a shotgun blast.  I brought up mine. I don't get why mine's a shotgun blast and yours isn't. OK, so let's let's get at it. So I can point out an error that you made in the ones that you read out as proof you said that Allah has not granted life. You can hardly see it at the bottom of the ocean. No, you can't hardly see it. You can't see anything at all. Light does not reach down there, Nadir. It is inaccurate. It may be scientific. We don't know what Muhammad did to get the information that he got because he hasn't documented any kind of methodology for reaching his conclusions. And that is what makes it unscientific. You didn't listen to my introduction, unfortunately, because I also said that things can be right and not scientific. Things can be scientific and not right. I pointed out a book that was scientific, but it was not right on the eighth. It was incorrect and is not scientifically accurate. So you have to argue that things are both correct and scientifically acquired. Those two criteria and I outlined that directly. Now, you're sort of pointing out that people 400 to 500 years before Muhammad's time made an error, that's basically what the nub of your argument is. So he's had 400 to 500 years of knowledge accumulated by humankind in order to correct the error. I don't see how that suddenly becomes scientifically relevant. If he hasn't followed any kind of scientific doctrine, even if he got it right, there's still monumental errors in the Quran. And I'd like you to address some of them. Barry is in the sea. You can sort of see that. And plus, if you're swimming down in the ocean, you can see it getting darker. It doesn't take a great stretch to go.  And he even got it wrong by saying you can hardly see the light. You you can't see the light. Like, so there's there's an error. And I love that you brought up Aristotle because Aristotle wasn't scientifically accurate either. So that's actually pretty hilarious, Nadia. That's time over to you, Nadia. OK, so as you can see, Mark is struggling here. And now we see that he's going down like the Titanic and like all the other atheists, they cannot take a verse of the Quran, show an article and show how that you contradict. Now, he's bringing up all these issues. What's scientific? What's not barriers like one issue at a time? I'm an old man. But what I am trying to show everybody, he's panicking tonight. He's panicking. He knows that there's clear agreements with modern science. He knows he has no article or reference to share with you tonight to show a contradiction between the Quran and science. Now, I should I literally took the Quran verse, juxtaposed it with an article from modern science. I did it repeatedly over and over again. Why can't you do that with a Quran? That's the question tonight. Now, if I don't answer some of the questions about days, sperm in the back, but all these things, they've all been debunked. Please keep in mind that I can only do one at a time here. So let's do the thing about days, then we'll get to the barriers and things like that. But if I don't answer all of his points here, don't be impressed. He's just shotgun blasting points at everybody, hoping that I won't get an opportunity to address that. So let's let's let's do the days thing. So my question here is, how many wacky, quacky interpretations did you count? Have you ever done that? Just count how many wacky, quacky interpretations? I counted two. It is a misrepresentation of science and it is a misrepresentation of the Quran. Double barrel interpretation spin. The Quran makes it very clear. I'm going to share my desktop over here that that the day has an arbitrary amount of time, like, for example, you could just Google it from the scholars article, sometimes a day, the thousand years, sometimes 50,000 years in the Quran in chapter 70 verse four. So he misrepresented the Quran by by restricting it to a 24 hour period. He misrepresented science because the creation of the universe was a miracle and science is cool with miracles. There we go. I'm sorry, I have to restrict you guys, but these are the rules we agreed to follow. So two minutes and we'll end the screen share there for now. Over to you, Mark. I love the abroad miracles idea because miracles are not scientifically accurate. They're not involved in science at all. So any book that has miracles in is not a scientific book because it does. Miracles are supernatural. They're not part of the natural world. And as methodological naturalism, science excludes them. That's not what science is for. But if you'd like me to, I mean, I didn't realize I would have to argue that, you know, this kind of thing. How about let's focus in on Quran 37, 6 to 10, I believe it is. And the NASA saying what are meteorites? Meteorites are a solid piece of debris from an object such as common asteroid or meteorite that originates in outer space and survives its passage through the atmosphere to reach the surface of the planet or the moon. The Quran basically says that shooting stars, i.e. what we know to be meteorites, are lamps thrown at devils who are trying to pierce the heavens and listen in on heaven. So could you explain why that's not a contradiction? And I forgot to say this in the last thing. I don't think you know what word for word means, Nadia, because when you say, oh, it says that word for word, it doesn't say it word for word. You're basically interpreting it and saying, oh, it's exactly the same when it's not exactly the same. So when you say word for word, it is verbatim. It is exactly the words that have been put in the Quran as on the scientific documents. And that is clearly untrue. So maybe to learn what word for word or verbatim means. All right, we'll pass the floor over to you there, Nadia. Two minutes. OK, so let's talk one issue at a time here, Mark. OK, so it looks like Mark will fail the challenge tonight. I think that's pretty clear for everybody that he will not be able to take an article from Science, juxtapose it with the verse of the Quran and show a contradiction between the two. That's just not going to happen tonight. And and I think we can we can we will give him more opportunity to do so. But then he tried to talk. He tried to give his own definition or his own understanding of the scientific position on miracles. But like I said, this is a double barrel interpretation spin. And one thing I do want to tell everybody tonight, the main argument about this year's the atheists and the people who challenge the Quran, they will not be able to bring facts. Only wacky, quacky interpretations. He double barreled interpretations, not just on the Quran, but on science. He spun it in a way, both of them simultaneously to create a contradiction. So let's go to let's go to I'm going to share my desktop over here real quick. And let's take a look. He was not able to answer. Oh, OK, that might hold it that I'm sorry. I'm not looking. No, you're set up. OK, OK, let me let me share my screen over here. You cannot start the screen share while the other participants are sharing. Sorry, that's my that's my sorry. Yes, OK, so we'll get to meet yours in just a second, Mark, please. Let's finish one issue at a time. So let me go ahead. OK, thank you. Let me go ahead. Here's how science works from the article, how the scientific, how the scientific method works from the from how stuff works. This plays certain topics beyond the reach of scientific method. It's beyond the reach. So if something is a miracle, we really don't apply the scientific method to it. Only fools do that. They might do that at the atheist Academy of pseudoscientific excellence. But that's not how science works. Science cannot prove nor refute the existence of God or any supernatural. And so he misrepresented science and he is also misrepresented in the crown. So it looks like you have no defense on the number of days. You said days was only 24 hours in the Quran. Obviously, that's not true. And you misrepresent the science. Once you cannot defend the day issue, let's get to meet yours. And I'll deal with you on that. All right, let's end the screen share for now and we'll kick it back over to you. There, Mark. OK, well, we were only doing one. Sorry, we were just doing one topic at a time. We were talking about meteorites and you sort of avoided it. I'll talk about the day thing. So remember, I said earlier that you'll notice pseudoscience will take things out of context and breathe interpretation into them. So, you know, it is interpreted that the two days means X amount of time. But that's not a surface reading of the text, which does have to happen in a scientifically accurate book. And the DSS, I can't put two articles side by side. The heroes, as it says, we have dawned with an adornment of stars, their protection against every rebellious devil.  I wouldn't think I was going to be arguing that devils are unscientific today. But here we are. I don't know what happened. Repelled and for them is a constant punishment, except one that snatches some words by theft is pursued by a burning flame piercing in brightness. This is talking about shooting stars and their protection against devils. And here is meteorites in NASA. I don't know why I have to do this, but apparently we're going to be arguing if devils are actually repelled by meteorites or something. Now, notice that is a thing when you brought it up. It says that God is outside the purview of science. I never said that science disproves to God. I said that science doesn't deal with the God and therefore you cannot have a scientific book that talks about a God because it falls outside and miracles fall outside of science. So Nadir apparently agrees with me. He just says that, hey, because it falls outside the realm of science, it automatically has to be considered scientific. I don't know why that would be the case. It is not scientific in the slightest. And so he has, in fact, gone ahead and proved that a book of miracles and God and all of these supernatural things is, in fact, unscientific. Because science doesn't deal with those kind of things. That's it. And I'll pass back over. You got it. Yeah. What are you going to do? Yeah, a book which talks about gods, devils, heaven and hell. This is all according to unscientific. Look, I have already conceded tonight that the Quran is in contradiction with atheist pseudo scientific quackology. I'm admitting that tonight. But from a scientific point of view, it's perfectly fine if you want to believe in gods, goddesses, heaven or hell. They don't take a stand on that. OK, so we have to make the distinction between what is atheist quackology and what is modern science? They have a and don't confuse it, too. So, OK, you weren't able to defend. You know, you were pointed out that the day could be 50,000 years, it could be 1000 years, it'd be a 24 hour period in the Quran. He wasn't able to refute that. And miracles and science and talking about gods and goddesses, whatever from scientific point of view, it's there's they're not going to challenge that that's fine. So there's no and notice he wasn't able to show any article presenting what science really believes on miracles. I've already presented mine. So now let's get to meteors. This is the fun part. Remember, the scientific miracle of the Quran, where the where the what you are going to find amazing tonight is that every refutation I'm presenting is backed by fact.  So let's let's post up and you share your desktop, Mark, and let's look at what you got over there, if you could, please, because we're going to have a good laugh at you real quick here, but now, unfortunately, I'm going to have to not talk more about the scientific miracles and scientific agreement. I'm just talking about alleged scientific errors. So I'm sorry, I'm going to have to kind of bypass that debate. So look what it says over here. Look at the look at the quackology going on here. The streak, which you see in the sky, that those are meteors burning in the atmosphere. Where do you show anything on the right hand side that contradicts that, Mark? And in fact, the verse says nothing about stars. The actual word there is lamps. So there's one wacky, quacky interpretation, right? That he's now reinterpreting the Quran. Why can't you just let the Quran speak for itself without reinterpreting it? Because stars are not even mentioned in the text. You see? So my point here is that now he's seen yet a second time where these alleged scientific errors are based upon interpretation. You cannot take a text of the Quran, compare it with modern science and show a contradiction. This is an utter fail, which you have here. So now I think I got a couple of more seconds here. It looks like you will not be able, it's very difficult to debate scientific miracles, that all the agreement with science and alleged scientific errors. So I'm going to have to abort the first debate. Let's just focus on these alleged scientific errors here. But look how he's misrepresenting the text. So here's my question for you, Mark. Where does it say anything about stars in the text of the Quran? And where does it show that in the heaven, that streak that we see, that they're talking about that? Can you please explain that to us, Mark? All right, there was a little extra time. So, Mark, I'll give you two and a half. Thank you. It's really odd that you're sort of talking about scientific crackology and all of this kind of stuff. I mean, I understand that that's your rhetoric, but, you know, I've brought up scholars like Carl Popper, who's been very, very influential in the philosophy of science. I've brought up other people who have sort of talked about pseudoscience and the places that they go to when they go to not dealing with empirical evidence and instead go for interpretation and excusing away what it says. I mean, I love, I absolutely love that you say, hey, it's not stars in the sky, it's lamps in the sky. That's great. That's fantastic, Nadir. Could you give me a scientific paper saying that there's lamps in the sky? Or is that sort of just scientifically accurate as well? Because I don't think that science has determined there to be lamps in the sky. And I don't think that's scientifically accurate at all. I almost missed that. You said, oh, well, I bought the first debate. Are you basically conceding and saying, hey, the first this debate's off? Like, what are you saying, Nadir? It's very, very strange that you're saying, well, I bought the first debate and go to what I really want to argue. You're basically conceding the entire debate saying, hey, I don't want to talk about this anymore. Well, I'm sorry, that's the title of the debate. So if you want a debate, we'll be talking about the scientific accuracy of the text, which the crime is scientifically inaccurate, as I pointed out many, many times. This is just one example. And I can go through some others if you'd like. That's no problem whatsoever and how they disagree with scientific articles about that thing. So and maybe you should give us your definition of science. If you're saying that I'm using an incorrect one about methodological naturalism, maybe you should give your definition of science and what is scientific? I can't hear him. Go ahead, Nadir. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, he passed the clock over. Yeah, Mark, Mark, can you can you can you post what you just had there? Let's do one. The reason why I'm not talking about the scientific miracles in the Quran is because I'm bogged down by addressing your other claim. I'd love to talk about it, but I can't do both at the same time. So let's first finish these alleged errors. Can you please post what you just what you just had on the screen? Because I want to read it to you. OK, share your desktop again, Mark. Let's see if the Quran is talking about the streak in the sky and is saying that's a star. Let's let's see if it really the Quran really says that. OK, I mean, I think we're like getting my screen again and again. It's kind of really obnoxious. It has been a lot of shares. Well, what is it indeed? Right. OK, let's look at the verses he's highlighting here. Let's see what's talking about the streak in the sky that sometimes we see at night is said indeed we have we have adorned the nearest heavens. I'm sorry. Indeed. I'm sorry. This can indeed we have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment of stars. OK, and actually the word there is koakib. It could mean star planet. But let's just go with stars. OK, no problem, no problem. Where does it say that the streak in the sky that is referring to the streak in the sky that everybody looks at, you know, some of not every week. We can we can see that. Obviously, this is a big fail. The Quran is not talking about the streak in the sky, which we are looking in inside at nighttime. So I see no contradiction between the scientific article you posted and the Quran, they are talking about two different things. So OK, let me quickly talk about the scientific miracles. So going back to the issue about the barrier, those are three scientifically correct statements, barriers in the sea. He says, well, you could just observe it. No, that's invisible. It the text of the Quran did say that the likeness of the disbeliever is like for a person who has no light referring in the sea. Scientifically correct again. And that's a triplet of scientifically correct statement without error, which Mark was not able to explain. All right, let's try to make that the last screen share for this evening. And we'll try to keep your lovely faces on screen. We got quite a bit of debate to go. So if you haven't already hit the like button, do so. And we'll once again be doing a Q&A at the end of all this. So get your questions in and let's keep it rolling over to you, Mark. Yeah, so this is this is this is actually hilarious because there were stars before and when that's inconvenient, it goes to lamps. Now it's back to stars again. So, you know, keep in mind what I said about how pseudoscience works by inserting any interpretation that you want in there. And Nadia's gone from one to the other trying to make something work in there. And it says that the assembly of angels are pelted by by every side from these stars. It's clearly talking about meteorites. There is another passage in the Quran, which references that the shooting stars are lamps thrown by a lot of throwaway the devils. I can find that one too. That's not a problem. So he's gone back to barriers in the sea. Now, what does that actually mean? Does it mean that there's a barrier between the salt water and fresh water? As some Muslims say, is it a barrier underneath the water? We don't know. We don't know because it's not clear. It's unscientifically unclear. It doesn't explain what the barriers are. It doesn't explain what methodology was used to find this information. All it says is there's barriers in the sea in quite a poetic way. That's great. But it doesn't actually say what that barrier is, where it exists and what it can comprises of. It has no information whatsoever to say on it. So the idea that that is correct, it has to be interpretation to make it correct. And I've heard multiple different interpretations address multiple different scientific facts before. What this is is a post hoc rationalization. It's finding a scientific fact, going back to the Quran and saying, hey, I can make this work. I can fit this into the scientific facts. Scientific miracles has absolutely no meaning. It's an oxymoron because as Nadia pointed out in his screen share, the science does not deal with gods and miracles. So for him to say a scientific miracle is just a nonsense proposition. It's an oxymoron. It's a contradiction in terms already because science doesn't deal with miracles. He also avoided just quickly. He also avoided he didn't give a definition of science. So Nadia, I'm going to hold you to this. What is your definition of science?  Over to you. OK, to the moderator, I think we have a lot to share on our on our desktops. Can we continue sharing our screens? Is that OK? If we could have just like a period, maybe I would just ask like a period where we just keep ourselves on screen, like maybe maybe another 10 minutes of just like back and forth just so that our audience, like I said, gets gets the image on the podcast. It's not going to matter regardless. So yeah, it's OK. So I'll just start my two minutes. So it looks like that was an epic fail from Mark. I asked you to show an article, which, you know, contradicts modern science. I mean, you keep rambling a lamp in the sky and it's like this and it's like that. Look, look, you need to show a verse of the Koran, show an article from modern science like how I did. OK, and show a contradiction between the two. You were not you were not able to do so. That was an epic fail. We just saw tonight of you trying to you have misread the Koran the second time. First, you thought that the Koran was only talking by 24 hour period of day. Then you started talking. Then you misrepresented that. Then you misrepresented the Koran where it talks about that phenomenon we see in the sky about the the streak, which we see, which are meteors burning in our atmosphere, like the Koran's talking about this to see the lamp first. Yes, this is it's all all talking. No, it's not. OK, so I want to give you a third opportunity to find an article from science, match it up with a Koran and show a contradiction between the two. Now, I know you rattle off all these alleged scientific errors, but come on, guys, I'm an old man, I can deal with one issue at a time. Now, I want to get to the issue on barriers. You are right. I mean, the Koran simply has a statement which agrees is modern science, but it could be reinterpreted to mean something else like islands or something like that. Yeah, definitely. All you're doing, you're just calling the cops. OK, so the issue here, which I want to point out to look, the verse can have two two interpretations. You can say it could refer to islands, let's just say, or it could refer to the picnic line if we are which is that barrier in the sea, which science is talking about, it could be either one. And the scientific miracle is that you just can't make that conclusion based on that one fact, but when you see a consistency of it, it's about recognizing a pattern that one of the valid interpretations of the verse does agree with modern science. And you can see that pattern in 10 seconds on repeatedly over and over again. So yeah, certainly you are right. You can reinterpret it to mean something else. But where you are wrong and where you are going to be defeated tonight is by denying that there's a clear pattern of this type of behavior in the Koran. That's one of the interpretations does matter science. Thanks so much. All right. Or you mark two minutes. OK, well, I mean, Nadia's asked me to share things again. I don't think this is 100 percent necessary. I think it's just sort of, you know, filibustering and rhetoric on Nadia's part. But I can show you where the the Koran says that man was created from pottery and I'll show you thousands of articles on evolution, clearly showing it to be absolute nonsense. So I mean, I can do that. But I think I think we can all agree. And I think, you know, because we don't want to just continually share the screens that man created like that of pottery and from clay is not like I can show you papers, scientific papers that say that that is not true.  And like I said, miracles and stuff is not in the current. Now, we're not sort of discussing whether something's accurate. We're discussing whether something's scientifically accurate. And that's important because as I pointed out in my opening and I think you completely ignored, I could say, hey, Nadia trims his beard, right? I could say that because I look at you and I see a neat beard. I could make that that sort of extrapolation. And I would say I could be a hundred percent correct about that. It doesn't make it scientifically accurate. It doesn't. I have not performed science as in the methodological naturalism in order to analyze whether that event actually occurs. You might just naturally have a very neat beard. You might not, you know, there could be a number of ways I could be wrong. But even if I am right, it doesn't make it scientifically accurate because there is no methodology that falls under the scientific purview. And again, you haven't given your definition of science. Give your definition of science. Stop dodging. Over to you, Nadia. OK, so we are going to see there's going to be another epic fail tonight of Mark trying to find a scientific article and trying to show a contradiction between that and the Quran. Now, here's my point. I was able to show agreement between the Quran and modern science. I showed a verse of the Quran. Then I show the article and I showed where the two agreed word for word, like like the barrier in the sea. That's word for word agreement. Why can't you do that with the Quran? That's the question tonight. That's where the miracle is. That's where the big win is quibbling about what is science and stuff like that. OK, I will give you the Cambridge definition. You know, it says over here relate something which relates to science. Simple something which relates to science that's scientific. But the big elephant in the room here tonight is that there are verses in the Quran and we talked about one of them actually I was referring to about how the human I'm sorry, gender determination by the sperm that is mentioned in the Quran. OK, that is undeniable. It is a consistent pattern of making scientifically correct statements. And yeah, you could say, OK, let's reinterpret that to make it mean something else could do that, sure. But the question is one of the valid interpretations is agreement with science. So there's a pattern of this behavior in the Quran. So it's a frequency, the miracle in the frequency, not in the individual occurrence. Individually, you could various maybe meant something else by that. Sure. So let's get back to the issue which you are kind of referring to about the man being created from dust. That's perfectly fine to say, because this is talking about the creation of Adam. Adam was created by God. Again, this is another miracle and we don't apply scientific method to miracles. I know at the Academy of atheists who the Scientific Academy for Excellence, they do that, but that's just not what the rest of the world does. So this is in complete harmony with modern science by saying Adam was created from dust. All right. Over to you, Mark. Two minutes. Yeah, so it doesn't say word for word that there's para-clines or barriers in the sea. It says barriers in the sea. It doesn't say word for word. So again, you've misquoted what word for word for word means a word for word. It doesn't mean like it says barriers in the sea. So that equals the scientific understanding of, you know, the like you don't know what word for it. You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means.  And as it says in the Quran, it makes a blood clot and then Allah decides the sex of that blood clot and I can find the verse for that as well. And I did bring up how the bond from clay match does not match evolution. And the whole point is that evolution says that that's how humans came about. Any humans. So there is no Adam or even the evolutionary history. It's not there and it precludes an Adam and Eve. And that's what you're skipping over. No human was made from clay. Any human like I can't believe that you're actually saying, well, no, it is scientific. It's saying the first humans were made from clay. That is not what science says, Nadia. I'm really sorry. But I brought up the article about human development from evolution. And it does not have clay nor dust anywhere in there. It is a contradiction with science. I will again bring up you did not define the word science. You basically said scientifically is related to science, but you didn't actually define science in any way, shape or form. Again, you're dodging, you're just avoiding the issue.  And I'll bring up that the Quran says that the sperm, it makes a clot and then Allah decides the sex of the baby. We know as a fact that medical researchers know as a fact that at conception, the sex of the birth of the child is decided not in a clot. And Allah isn't involved in any way. So that is unscientific. That's an unscientific claim. OK, one more round and then we'll go to go back to screen sharing. So over to you, Nadia. Yeah, look, Mark, I mean, anybody can sit here and start rattling off in the Quran's wrong here in the Quran's wrong there in the Quran's wrong here in the Quran's wrong there in the Quran's wrong. Come on, what is this? Bring up one issue, bring up one verse, bring an article and show the contradiction between the two. You will not do that. OK, this modern day debate is a graveyard of atheists who try to do what you are doing. OK, now. Please try to understand, I'm not a Superman over here where I can just jump on all these alleged claims. Oh, it's wrong over here. You see, it says clot and and at conception time, you see, that's when it's really the baby's born and give me a break.  You're panicking, Mark. You are panicking in tonight's debate because you know you cannot show a clear contradiction between science and the Quran. Now, let me let me show you the word for word agreement on barriers. I don't know if I'm able to show my seat on my screen, but I will just read to you what I have and then I'll show it to you. Look what science says. NASA's website over here. Picnicline, which is that acts as a barrier. Quran talking about the seas between them is a barrier. Word for word agreement. That's what I mean. So there you go. I slowly put the two together and if I can share my screen, I can show you I can take an article of NASA. I can take a verse of the Quran and show the agreement with the two between the two. But you cannot do that with the Quran. Well, I mean, you cannot show a contradiction between the Quran and science, like the way I'm showing agreement. I think that's a question which we need to ask tonight. Why isn't Mark able to do that? Why? Why were the first issue of the epic fail about the streak and all that nonsense which he was trying to produce here tonight? So the question about what makes the Quran a scientific miracle? Yeah, I mean, the barrier could we just look at this one verse? We could say, OK, maybe it's talking about that's time. Oh, I'm sorry. That's all right. Yeah. And honestly, I have no problem going back to screen sharing, but I do find it is a lot easier to focus on what people are saying when when there's not too much going on on the screen. But like I said, for the podcast, it's not going to matter either way. So over to you, Mark, two minutes. Yeah. Well, I mean, Nadia keeps saying, hey, show you this on the screen kind of thing. I think that he's just sort of trying to obfuscate. And I can show it on the screen if we are allowed to screen share where it says that let's go for it. We it has it has been that that's what I said. So yeah, yeah, if you want to go ahead. Yeah, it's on the screen now. Sorry, that's the wrong one.  There it is. There it is. All right, go for it. OK. Yeah. So this is where saying that he was a cleaning clot and a lot created his form and proportioned him. Then made him two mates, the male and the female. So this is where it says it's a cleaning clot and then alarm makes of him in the next verse, a male or a female. Now, that is not what happens. In fact, the sex of a baby. And I'll just show the it's from Science Daily geneticists from the University of Melbourne. The sex of a baby is determined by its chromosome make up at conception. Now, I really don't know how this will be word for word. It's exactly the same, but I'm sure it will be in some way, right? So, you know, it's actually decided by which sperm reaches the alarm doesn't have any say in it, as far as we know. I mean, but this is the kind of thing that he's trying to claim is scientifically accurate. Now, there's stuff like sandbars, which are called barrier bars as well. So if that was the case, like Nadia may claim, hey, a barrier bar is a barrier in the sea. Look at how correct the Quran is. He could be talking about the the difference between salt and fresh water. Or it's a barrier that that could be what they're talking about. So he's basically interpreting it to fit whatever scientific facts. He still has not given a definition of science. The fact that I'm panicking. I'm not the one who's been asked questions and not addressing them. He's not addressing what science actually is. And I want this to be absolutely clear to everybody. He is dodging this question because he says, oh, you've got the wrong science. Your understanding of science is incorrect. Well, enlighten us all, Nadia. Give us your definition of science and we'll see if it makes my definition or we can find middle ground in some way. But I don't think you know what science is. I don't think you know what it is. I don't think you know how it's implemented. I don't think you know anything about it. All right, that is time. And I found a way to screen share and keep us on the screen by doing a window capture, so feel free to share away their gentleman. Do I need to take this up, Nadia? Yeah, do you want to do you want to take it down, Nadia? No, that's fine. You can leave it out there. OK, OK. So when conception, when the actual male and the female is determined, that's not mentioned in the Quran. OK, it's nowhere mentioned. This is that male and female, when this determination actually happens, it's going to be at this point. There is nothing like that in the Quran. Rather, the determination is made at conception. Now you've got to build what you made, right? So it's like you've got your you've got your blueprints that we know what the plan is. We want a male. OK, great. Now we've got to build it, right? So that's all the Quran is stating over here. OK, so now the parts are being made for this particular person. But nowhere does it say that the determination for the baby or for a male or female is taking place after the alaqa stage or what you're showing over here. That's not what the Quran says. Once again, another epic fail of trying to show a contradiction between the Quran. OK, so let's get back to the issue about science. Yeah, I'm running away from it because it's kind of dumb. I mean, what how I'm doing is what you are doing. OK, when I saw that you are trying to show a contradiction between the Quran and science, I'm like, OK, let me show an agreement between the Quran and science. All right, all I'm doing is what you're doing there. OK, so if I can let let's pretend I mean, I could play the same game you're playing. Let's pretend you did show a scientific error in the Quran. OK, let's just go along with that. I consider that but define science. What's scientific and try to avoid the issue at play here. So yet again, a second fail. Another fail tonight to show a contradiction between the Quran and the science. But though I do thank you for finally sharing your desktop, not rattling off fronds and air over here, runs over here, evolution and play and this. I can't keep up with that. So but let's get back to the issue to set your timer. So we'll say 30 more seconds or 30 more seconds. OK, thanks. So where the scientific miracle is that on the seas, the scientific agreement occurred in triplets. Three scientifically correct statements in a row. In order to disprove this Quran is not a scientific miracle. You are supposed to show a scientific errors pertaining to oceans, not clots, gender stuff. Because if you're doing scientific research, then it's through trial and error. Mark, if you don't show a scientific error on marine biology, oceanography, the game is over, that's it. Because then we know this is verse is a scientific miracle. Because how can you rattle off about something you don't even know what you're talking about, like sometimes I do, and I put my foot in my mouth. So that's where the scientific miracle is. You made three scientifically correct statements and you didn't make an error. So the scientific miracle is not really in the agreement, but in the fact that you didn't make an error. That's where the miracle is. And that's what Mark is failing to show. So would you like to address my challenger? You've got to show a scientific error pertaining to oceanography. Yeah, so, yeah, you're completely mistaken, Nadia.  You're completely mistaken. The the topic of this debate is not is the Quran scientifically accurate on oceans. That is not the topic of the debate. The topic of the debate is is the Quran scientifically accurate.  Absolute nonsense. I don't have to show a scientific error on oceans. I just have to show a scientific errors. That's all. That's absolutely all. So it's absolutely inconsistent. I showed scientific errors on what men are made out of by the Allied. I showed scientific error about how conception works and how the sex is decided on birth. You said I didn't have a definition of science, which is blatantly wrong. And I can't believe you're saying this because I actually included three in my presentation. I'll go for the one that's the Science Council, because I quite like them. Science is the pursuit and application of the knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. That is my definition of science. Lock that in. So you're saying that, oh, I don't know what I didn't define. No, you're projecting, Nadia, you didn't define science. You've run away from it. You've had multiple times to address it. This is this must be the fifth or sixth time I've asked you for your definition of science and you just admitted that you're running away from it. So maybe I'll drop that you're running away from the definition of science. But then I wonder how you possibly can make any coherent article argument on how the Quran is scientifically accurate. If your definition of scientifically is pertaining to science and you don't know what science is, how can you make any any argument on that? Like you seem to say, well, I don't know what science is, but the the Quran has it.  I'm really sorry. But that is that is terrible. I'm sorry. Over the year. Yeah. So I mean, you're quibbling about what science is. The definition I like to follow is science is that which which the scientific community agrees on. There you go. You've got your definition, but all that is irrelevant to the fact that, yeah, you do, you do got to show a scientific errors pertaining to ocean. Oceanography, that's it. It's over. It's game over for you. It's tap out if you don't. The reason why is because of scientifically agree statements, which we find in the Quran that there are bears in the sea.  We find no light at the bottom of the ocean. I mean, this is all we find versus the Quran, which agree with these scientific facts. How can a man rattle off scientifically correct statements and not make a mistake? If Muhammad was doing research that occurs through trial and error, of course, we know he can't be doing that because it takes modern day technology to to do those type of things. So we can rule that out. We know that he's not doing research because he would have made an error, which you are not able to show. And there are no scientific errors pertaining to oceans or anything like that in the Quran. So so then we know it's not research. We know it's not guessing.  That leaves one explanation that this is something which is supernatural or inexplicable. We have no good natural explanation. How a man can rattle off three scientifically correct statements without making an error and then talk about how that, you know, that the sperm determines a gender and then talk about, you know, correct six scientific errors. The Bible and I have so many more scientifically correct statements, but I have enough to seal the deal to conclusively argue my case that the Quran is a scientific miracle and Mark has no good explanation for the agreement between science and which he actually agrees that the Quran corrected six errors of the Bible. He has no explanation for that. Over to you, Mark. So a definition of science on which the scientific community agrees on. I think that's a flawed definition. I'll explain why it's because automatically evolution would be true. Automatically, other things would be true that you probably disagree with. So the problem problem comes that if somebody is starting to investigate, say something that isn't accepted, like Mary Schweitzer, who basically contended that soft tissue could last for a long time, and that's not accepted by the scientific community yet and I want to make that clear yet, then that is not science and we know that she was doing science. So your definition is 100 percent flawed. It can't be that. So, yeah, you don't need modern scientific methods to do science. Aristotle back in the ancient Greek days was doing science. He might not have been accurate about everything, but he was certainly going science. So Pythagoras was doing science. You don't need modern scientific methods in order to do science. You just need a empirical methodology that is according to the scientific methods. And they certainly were using that.  Mohamed never used it because it's very, very effective in finding things out. So oceans, I don't know why you're on about oceans again. I already pointed out as well just because this is you seem obsessed with oceans. That the Koran says that you hardly see anything at the bottom of the sea. That's not true. You don't see anything at all. Light does not actually reach there. So hardly is not a word that should be used there. It's scientifically inaccurate. There you go. There's your ocean debunk. Yeah, but, you know, so your definition of science is flawed. Your claims that I didn't provide contradictions between science and the Koran is flawed because I were provided many, many contradictions. You just are using justification to explain them away, which, as I pointed out, was a pseudo scientific way of trying to deal with this kind of thing. And then you'll go to conspiracy and all of this kind of stuff next. Thank you. All right, what do you mean? Yeah. OK, so.  You try to show you try to produce an article and then you try to show a contradiction between the article and the Koran. You failed by the streaks in the sky.  No, no, it's not. Then you try to show that the determination of whether it's going to be male or female, that's in the verse. No, it's not talking about that. It's talking about making the parts now. OK, so you failed there. I want to have some more fun with you. Can you please show us another one of these contradictions between the science of the Koran, between the Koran and some scientific journal? We've seen two or three fails unless I'm forgetting one. And I'm actually having fun with those. But here's my point. You will never be able to do that. You will never be able to show a contradiction between modern science and the Koran. Now, did I address all of the points of Mark of the Koran's contradicting here? The Koran's contradicting there. I can't catch up with all that stuff. OK, I can do one at a time. Now, the issue, you said, no, the Koran is wrong because it says you can hardly see it. Let's read the verse very quickly over here. OK, it says over here and to the darkness for some upon the one who puts out his hand, he can hardly see it. And it compares. This is what he's talking about. And to he whom Allah has not granted light for him, there is no light. It compared the bottom of the ocean with no light. But there is a point in the sea where you can actually see it. There is no error over there. Come on, what are you talking about there? So the issue here is the sea miracle, I think, has sealed the deal. Three scientifically correct statements about oceans without making an error. I think rest the case. No more need no more needs to be said about the scientific miracle of the Koran. All right, two minutes. Show us another mistake, Mark. I was having fun with that. Show us another article and we're contradicting science. Could you do that for us? Yeah, sure. I mean, I could do this all day, to be honest with you. Do it all. We're having fun with that. Show the article. So could you just repeat again why there is no light at the bottom of the ocean, according to Koran? Well, it doesn't say why. It just says it compared. It made a comparison between you and me to read it out. You need me to actually go and find out where you're going to show us some scientific error, show some scientific error in the Koran. OK, so you're not going to actually be sort of honest. I want you to show us a scientific error. Show this scientific journal and the Koran and let's see the mistake between the two. Come on, we're having fun with it. The Koran says that there's no light at the bottom of the ocean because Allah has not granted them light. Is that correct? No, that's not what the Koran's what the Koran actually did. It made a comparison with a disbeliever that it said is that his is. It's like it's like the actual verse says it said the darkness within within the seas where which covered by waves upon waves over which are clouds, darkness, some and some of them upon others. When one puts out his hand, he could hardly see it. And to he and to whom Allah has not granted light for him, there is no light. So what the Koran did compare. Yeah, yeah, I'll take my rest of my time now. Thank you. OK, so so when I have a screen share because Nadia is absolutely like seriously, I don't know why I have to share this again. I was saying let's try to go with the flow, everybody. But let's let's go into the timer. So two minutes, Mark. Yeah, OK, so this is basically that saying Allah has not granted light for him. There is no light. Now, light can only penetrate beneath below the surface of the ocean. It travels through the water, the molecules and water scatter and absorb it. At great depth, lights are so scattered, there's nothing left to detect. So this is the scientific reason as to why there is no light at the bottom of the ocean. The Koran gives Allah has not granted light. That is not scientifically accurate, not scientifically accurate at all. Now, I basically produced all of these articles showing the contradiction. He just wants to wave them away. That's fine. That's fine. So but I love how he went to, oh, they're lamps in the sky, they're not done. So stars, they say lamps when called out on that, that lamps are unscientific. Nadia went back to, well, now they're back at stars. Then he's got to somehow explain how these stars in alignment with science are thrown at gin. So Nadia, do you think you can produce the scientific paper that say gin exists and that the stars in the sky are thrown at them to drive them back as the Koran says? So I'm going to challenge you to produce that, to show that that is scientifically accurate.  But but, you know, the whole idea that I have to share my screen to to acknowledge basic scientific facts is getting a bit ridiculous. So I'll challenge Nadia to produce the scientific paper that stars are lights thrown at gin. Sure. So let me start my two minutes. I'm going to share my desktop here. OK, what I what I will do, I'll show you how the versus actually a scientific miracle. OK. And so but now, as far as OK, my two minutes yet, you can go ahead and share your screen and start your two minutes there. Awesome. OK, so the thing is, it's talking about the supernatural once again. So from as I have already showed you from the scientific point of view, the science is silent on the supernatural. It's not going to confirm or deny it. So if you want to believe the motion of the earth causes a good to happen in the universe, that's perfectly fine from a scientific point of view. So science doesn't care about these things. Now, as I said, in the field of atheists, pseudoscientific ecology, this is a big problem. Yes, I agree, but not according to modern science. Now, let me get to the miracle here. So if you go to the Hadith of Prophet Mohammed, look at this right here. He talked about this verse in the Quran. OK, and I'm going to go through this very quickly because I don't have a lot of time here. OK, so the people, the Arabs, they I'm sorry, what they basically said today, asked him, they saw the shooting star. They said, this is Rajuman. This is a this is a star being shot or being thrown. I'm so I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Oh, how do you start again? What what it says over here? It says, let me read this very quickly. It said, when we were with the Messenger of Allah, we while he was sitting with a group of his companions when they saw the glowing shooting star. That's a scientific error. That's not a shooting that has nothing to do with stars. Now, if Mohammed was a false prophet, he would have confirmed that. Yeah, you'd see them stars. Let me tell you about them stars. Yeah, yeah, he would have said that. But look at what he says over here. He says, when you saw this during the days of ignorance, what did you say about that? Notice he refuses to confirm the scientific error of the people of his time. Very good.  He began, he said, what those things are? He quoted a verse in the Quran in which it stated that this is something which is she have. I'll get you that verse in just a second. But what did that verse actually state? And I'll get you the verse, something which is burning. He quoted a verse in the Quran. That is something which is burning. That's exactly what those streaks of the sky is. Something meteor burning in the atmosphere to scientifically correct statements in this one hadith. So that's why I believe in the Quran. So how may pass the challenge there? All right, over to you, Mark. Yeah, you can leave that screen up. So it says the shape and try to over.  No, no, no, no, no, you don't get away that easy, Nadia. Come on down. It says the shape and try to over here. No, back down the end of that. Yeah, the shape and try to over here. So they are shot at. So they cast it down to their friends. Like the entire thing says that it's shooting at devils. Like this is the whole point.  He said that a lamp and then suddenly we're back to shooting stars and meteorites. Like, is there any consistency to your claims whatsoever? You're just changing the narrative with what you think will work.  And I might add, I predicted this in my opening where things aren't based upon evidence, they're based upon interpretation and Nadia wants to interpret however he wants. So, you know, so he said like sort of, well, your atheist quackery, you know, scientific, what the scientific community agrees on was Nadia's definition. So by his own, his own definition, his God claims and the devils and all of this supernatural stuff is unscientific because the scientific community agrees that gods and supernatural things and devils are unscientific. They all agree on that. Even the most fervent believer believes that, hey, that's unscientific. It's not in the realm of science. So that is unscientific by Nadia's own definition. And yeah, it does say that they're trying to overhear things at heaven. So, you know, I don't know why we have to point out that the Quran does not say that meteorites or shooting stars, which are not, in fact, stars or lamps or any of the things that Nadia tries to claim they are, is not that they're rocky or metallic fragments from other astronomical, you know, this is what passes for scientifically accurate in Nadia's book, which is terrible because when you compare it with what a NASA document says they are, they are not being flung at devils. They are not being, you know, to keep them from overhearing secrets of heaven. No. All right. Over to you, Nadia. Are we keeping the screen up or are we going to? Yeah, I want to show. Can I finally find my verse here? Showing the scientific miracle here. OK, yeah, I know you there was some confusion between stars, lamps. Some verses say stars, some verses says lamps. And I was trying to juggle between the two. So I might have confused some people out there. But now, but the whole thing, which you said that because this is talking about gods and devils, this is unscientific in the world of. I guess that I mean, in the world of atheists, pseudo-scientific biology, yes, it's a problem. It's a very big problem, but not according to modern science. You showed no reference that you actually falsely claim that if you believe God, devils, supernatural, this is unscientific. No, it's not. No, it's not. OK. I've already and you show no reference for what you're talking about.  At least I am trying to show references. OK, now let me show you the verse. Mohamed equated this verse when that streak occurred in the sky. Is that the followers? That's a shooting star. Rujum al-Najum. I'm sorry, throwing. Actually, it translates to throwing star in Arabic. Mohamed refuses to acknowledge that he won't say that he says. So what do you guys say about that? Very good. He refuses to repeat the scientifically incorrect understanding of the people of his time. So now let without further ado, let's look at the verse he said. Let me tell you what that really is. He quoted the oops, he quoted this following. He quoted this verse right over here. He says, but if anyone, if anyone does not succeed in snatching a glimpse of such knowledge, he is henceforth pursued by a piercing flame, something which is burning in the atmosphere. That's exactly what science says, that when you see that streak in the sky, that's a meteor burning in the atmosphere. Now, whether you say, OK, well, they're being flung at something evil at a devil from a scientific point of view. That's perfectly fine. You can believe whatever you want about the supernatural. Five seconds, no problem there. This verse has backfired upon him. It is actually show the scientific accuracy of the of the of the Prophet Mohamed. And that pretty much seals the deal. Actually, the ocean verse seals it. But this one did it here. All right, back over to you, Mark. OK, so a lot of rhetoric from Nadir and his ideas stuff. So this isn't like miracles and gods and stuff. They aren't just unscientific to atheists and stuff like that. They're unscientific to theist scientists as well and all theist scientists. We understand what science is. And it's also unscientific according to his own definition, because he said science is that which the scientific community agrees on. And they agree that gods and miracles and demons and devils are unscientific. We don't investigate those with science. They're unscientific because science is methodological naturalism. Find me a scientific paper on miracles. You won't find one. You will not find one. There might be an anthropology paper on people believing in miracles or trying to investigate them, but you won't find one on actual physics paper on miracles. They're not in the purview of science. So they're unscientific even by Nadir's definition. And this whole thing about him saying, oh, well, sometimes it says lamp. Sometimes it says this. How is it then scientifically accurate? It can't be. If it says it's lamps in one place and then it says it's it's sort of missiles in another place or says it stars in another place, then it isn't scientifically accurate. It isn't accurate at all. Nadir seems to believe that maybe some poetic or flowering language is no problem in the Koran. It just it's whatever your poetic interpretation is. Well, a proper scientifically accurate book will have zero pod. There's no biology book where you get a haiku on the the the position of frogs in the ecosystem halfway through Nadir. There's no sonnet about the the pollination of flowers in your biology book because it is a scientifically accurate book. So I realized that the Koran partly is poetry is is hyperbolic language. I realized that. But that's one of the reasons why it is an unscientific book, because you don't put poetry in a science book. It's time. OK, so actually, Mark, you know what I would like for you to do? I want you to show us another one of those contradictions between modern science and and the Holy Koran. You remember how you had those two articles and try to juxtapose it? Please do share some more of that with us. I had a lot of fun with that. So I do extend that invitation for you again. I'd like to see that. But now, once again, he has misrepresented science. What science says about miracles? I have already refuted you on this. Let's share the article again. They don't deny, you know, gods, goddesses, demons. You want to believe that the sun, the star, the moon is chasing a devil. That's all perfectly fine. No problem. Let's read together carefully. The place isn't from how how how the scientific method works. If you can see my screen. It says this place is this place is certain topics beyond the reach of the scientific method. It's beyond the reach. So when you talk about lamps being hurled at devils or things like that, it's beyond the reach of the scientific method. Science cannot prove nor or disprove or refute the existence of God or any supernatural entity. But that's why I I always emphasize show a reference, show an article for what you are saying. And as you can see, Mark has no reference. He's just making bogus claims and he has just been refuted by by science here. So I think the debate's over. The triplet miracle, ocean miracle, that is three scientifically correct statements of the Quran without making an error proves it to be a scientific miracle. And as Mark would also agree, Muhammad corrected six scientific errors of the Bible. And so how is one man able to do all this? And of course, we saw the one astonishing verse where it said he created the male and the female from the sperm. It is a sperm which determine which determines the gender. And that's exactly what we find in the Quran. Well, I will inject right quick and say we've been going for what an hour and 20 minutes abouts. We are going to have a Q&A once we're wrapped up our back and forth here. So I think we're done. Yeah, I was picking up. Well, I think I like to respond early. Yeah, I like to respond. Well, don't say that on the Internet. You'll get a live chat really while I go ahead there, Mark. And we'll end up. So I love that he puts this on the screen because it's like certain topics, but between beyond the reach of the scientific method makes them unscientific. That's the whole point that Nadia seems to keep missing again and again and again. If something is not investigated by science, it is unscientific. Just as I pointed out that me guessing that Nadia uses a hair clipper is unscientific because I'm not applying the scientific method. So any failure to apply the scientific method, including to gods in the supernatural, makes it unscientific. Now, if you could take your screen down, I'd like to share again because Nadia keeps asking for it.  I got to say, like, you know, I don't know what's up within Nadia. You must like punishment, mate. But here we go again. Here's another one. So the Quran says that humans are created from a fluid ejected emerging between the backbone and the ribs. Yay, that's awesome. What does science say that it comes from seminal vesicles, the prostrate and the bio urethral glands? If you do know your biology and I wouldn't guarantee you do. They are nowhere near in between the backbone and the ribs. So they don't it doesn't come from your chest. Nadia, that's not where it comes from. That is a clear like if you were a medical student and you got this wrong, if you said, hey, it's between the backbone and the ribs, you would absolutely fail. That would be scientifically inaccurate, 100 percent inaccurate. So there's another one.  That's the thing. There's so many mistakes in the Quran. The difficulty isn't finding them. It's picking between them when you want to, you know, one or two to present to you because there are so many and the idea that, oh, because science doesn't investigate gods will then gods exist. And that's scientifically accurate. That is the most nonsense thing I've ever heard. No, if science doesn't address it, it's unscientific. That's the way it works. All right, let's go into the Q and A. I need to I need you to address backbone and ribs real quick. And I can do that. OK, all right, let's do one minute there. Oh, can you give me two minutes, please? OK, OK, twist my rubber. It's given 20 minutes. I really want to hear this. Yeah, yeah. All right, all right. Twist my rubber arm, you guys. Two minutes. OK, let me I'm going to share my screen if I may. If you give me a second. Sure, I'll take my debt. Yeah, I'm sorry. I've been just stopping you guys on your screen shares just to try to make it quick for you. So go ahead, Nadir. OK, well, I just want to quickly address him on the point where he said that, you know, it's beyond the scientific method. Science doesn't, he said, therefore, it's it's unscientific. That's his wacky, quacky interpretation. Nowhere does it say that God's goddess is heaven or hell. These are unscientific. Now, in atheists who do scientific biology, yes, it contradicts. Quackology, yes, atheists. Quackology, but that's perfectly fine from a scientific point of view. So backbone and ribs. This is due to his misunderstanding of the human body. Now, we talk about the between the backbone and the ribs. We, of course, we would think like the rib cage right over here, you know. So is the sperm being produced over there? Of course not. But science today tells us that the backbone and the ribs is also between the rib and your tailbone. That's also between the backbone and the ribs. Now, look what it says over here. It says talking about the kidney between the bottom of your rib cage and your hips. So that's also another place. So now when we let's let's go very quickly to this picture, which I have over here. And here we see that there's a vas-deverens. This is a tube which is right above the bladder. OK.  So let's look at another picture here. I think I got over here. Yeah. Now, here's what my point here on that is. Where is it? There's my picture. Yeah. Here's what my point here. Look what's off right on the right hand side. You've got the backbone and right above his head is the ribs. The vas-deference is right between the backbone and the ribs. So once again, the coronate, a beautiful analogy, a beautiful description of where where semen is ejaculated from between the backbone and the ribs is absolutely scientifically accurate. There you go. The ribs went even on that picture. Well, you know, it's it's right. The ribs are right above you. If you're standing on top of the vas-deference, you look up, the ribs are going to be right there. Yeah, they're not between the backbone and the ribs. OK, you're just making affirmations. Oh, of course it is. Before we before we circle the drain, fellas, let's get into the Q&A. So for anybody hanging out in the live chat, if you haven't already, let's hit the like button. Let's see is just a little over four hundred. Let's see if we can get as many of you. I'll just say as many. We won't put the bar too high, right? It's it's it's Friday, isn't it? Expectations can't be too high. All right, not for me. Saturday morning for me. Oh, yeah, there you go. In the future. Oh, yeah. Going to go watch some Saturday morning cartoons after this, are you? I think this was a Saturday morning. Oh, my God. Don't don't don't let me stop that. All right, bitter truth coming in and keep the super chats coming in. We'll keep the conversation rolling. It's been a lot of fun, fellas. Bitter truth. Thank you so much. Five dollars says we formed human from blood clot or clinging clot. Wrong, Nadir chapter 96 verse two never says that. Look, look that up, Nadir, I think is what you meant. So chapter 96 verse two, if you want to check it out. Wait a second, wait a second here. What's going on? We just me and Mark just had a wonderful debate here. We talked about the scientific miracles of the Quran. We talked about agreement. It would be nice that if the people who are in the question and who are asking the questions could talk about what we just talked about rather than just ignoring everything we talked about and trying to start a second debate on alleged scientific errors. OK, so I would I would like to ask the people who are going to ask questions, ask questions about what we talked about and what we debated about. But very quickly, I will address that. But the question, can you can you tell me what the question again? Yeah, so if I know anything about the truth, what he's saying is basically saying that he doesn't think it's scientific to say we formed human from blood clot or clinging clot wrong, Nadir chapter 96 verse two. Oh, yeah, never says. So yeah, I'm just trying to put the emphasis on the right.  Well, yeah, so he he's been refuted many times on this and he refuses to accept that that word has actually three meanings, clot, something which clings and I'm sorry, clot, something in a leech like thing, something which is leak like leech like, what has astonished the scientist is that every one of the meanings does accurately describe the embryo. Professor Keith Moore, as well as many other scientists, have actually talked and endorsed this verse that it is scientifically accurate. So he is just giving his opinions on what he thinks. But notice what I'm what my point is that people who try to raise scientific errors of the Quran, it's not based on fact, it's based on their personal interpretations. And that's what we all saw tonight, that they're not really able to bring facts about this. But where the big win in this debate was that you really can take a scientific journal and show a contradiction between the scientific journal and the Holy Quran. That just will not happen and it will never happen. I just addressed that quickly. Go ahead. Yeah, yeah. So this is again, post-hoc rationalization, it takes something that is known about the embryo and says, hey, I can fit it to the Quran if I interpret it in this way. And it's got three meanings. So I can use any of the three or all of the three or none of the three. Like, it really is just fitting in his book to what the science is. And because it is so vague, it fits in. And that's why it's unscientific, because it's so vague. It could mean anything. It's not particularly accurate. It doesn't say that it's an embryo and say its development cycle and say itself's multiplying. It says it's a blood clot or a clean clot, which it is not. It's not a clot at all. It is a embryo. And the problem is that and I want to say, hey, if you've got super chats, send them out, whatever. I don't mind.  I don't care. Go for it. I, you know, it's your money and you get to ask whatever you want. Don't let Nadia tell you what you can talk and not talk about. He doesn't get to decide that. You send in super chats for whatever your heart desires. I will support it a hundred percent unless it's about my bald head. So yeah, it is scientifically I can. Bear ball. Come on. So so this is scientifically inaccurate. It's not like it's not what you'll find in a medical journal. It's not accurate in any way that you could teach somebody about what an embryo is actually in science, that there's a reason why we don't have the Quran in our science textbooks, because it is scientifically inaccurate. So this is just again, post hoc rationalization, trying to fit the Quran to known fact. That's all it is. Did you have any other thoughts there, Nadia, before you move on? Yeah, I mean, we're trying to have a debate after the debate on the issue of clod.  Notice that it's all based upon personal interpretation. That's all they're giving you here. What the what the atheists say and these so-called errors of the Quran is not endorsed. They will never be able to find a reference, a journal to substantiate what they claim. I think where the miracle here is, I have shown you many articles which I could take the Quran and I could show the scientific article and show the agreement between the two. But you can't do that to show a contradiction. That's where the miracle is. And that's what people need to ask. Why isn't that the case? Why can you not do that? Can I ask you a question, Nadia, just quickly? Sure, yeah. Will there any change of evidence that scientists find into the future ever contradict what the Quran says? What if science changes? Well, now that's kind of a tough question to ask here, because like, for example, one of the scientific miracles is, you know, which we talk. There's just science we have to accept, which will never change. Like, for example, washing your hands before you eat, one of the corrections which Islam did with the Bible, you know, that's just science, which is not going to change.  That's just not going to happen. Now, there is situations where science could change. And therefore you said, ah, you see, the Quran is wrong on this issue because science changed. But what we have, I have already pointed out is, look, one verse could have multiple interpretations. What if science today says there are no barriers in the ocean? No, we just made it up, actually. Let's just give an example. Well, we've already said that it could also refer to islands because it has more than one interpretation. We can buffer ourselves like that. But where the scientific miracle is, is about seeing a pattern in the data. So no matter how science changes, the Quran is always going to be correct. This is God's word. You can't beat God's word. That's what you are facing tonight. So the answer is yes. Is that right? Well, look, look, you can find scientific errors of the Bible. Mohammed corrected. I'm not talking about the Bible. What my question is, is that even if the science changes, the crime will still be correct? Is that right? Is that a yes to that? Last word for you, Nadir. Well, so because the scientific, if you look at the science in the Quran, some of them can have more than one interpretation. In that case, the Quran will not be proven wrong. But now there are certain circumstances in the Quran, which makes absolutely a blanket statements, you know, that, for example, one verse in the Quran talked about that in honey, there's benefit for humanity. Now, if science changes, actually, honey has no benefit for humanity. Then yes, in that case, it would be proven wrong. So there's certain circumstances where that could happen. All right, let's move on. Matters Now for $5 says Quran denies human evolution. The most evidence based theories we have in science. Quran is wrong about evolution of humans after show on Matters Now. Yeah, no, the Quran actually doesn't deny human evolution. It actually, well, if now orthodoxy, orthodoxy denies evolution. But could you really find a contradiction between evolution and the Quran? You probably won't. You're not going to be able to because one of the points which people point out about the Quran, it doesn't say Adam was the first man. It doesn't say that. So let me I'm going to share my desktop if I could real quick. I could show you what some people can, you know, some theories some people can have here is here. If you could look at my picture, you got Adam off to the left over here. He could have mated with one of these homo groups and then from there we got all of humanity. So these are just some of the hypothetical situations people can bring up. I'm not saying that's what I believe. But what I'm saying is the Quran is actually open on this. So I don't see really any contradiction between evolution and the Quran. In fact, I don't even really discuss it. All right, let's carry on. So we got lots of questions coming in and I'm sure that there's going to be more pouring in as we continue on through these questions. Curious minds are going to want to know. So sunflower, so happy to see that you're here. Let's see. Nadir NIH paper from 2023 for heart disease, diabetes and neurological disorders. Wine not only does not increase the risk of chronic degenerative diseases, but is also associated with health benefits. We talk about wine, right? Yes. Yeah. OK, so yeah, this is so as you can see, this is this guy's argument is going to backfire on him. He still doesn't understand the science. Even though there are some health benefits to alcohol, the overall root of harms outweighs the benefits. That's what science says. Look at you could go to your doctor when you do when you go for your physical exam and when you tell him that either the check mark, do you drink alcohol or even for your eye exam, you can check mark no on that and nobody's going to come in the room. So why do you don't drink beer? You need some alcohol in you. No, alcohol is in spite of the good things which alcohol has, it is not needed by the human body. And the harms outweighs any benefits. This is word for word agreement with the Holy Qur'an in chapter two, verse two, nineteen, where it explicitly says that the harm outweighs any benefits. So here's my point. Even in today, the years two thousand twenty four, these people can't get it right. How did Mohammed get it right? Fourteen hundred years ago. And he's not the only one. But if you look at my other debates, you still see people fumble on this. Oh, it can help your heart, you know. So this is actually an evidence once again that Mohammed is a true prophet because he got it right fourteen hundred years ago. I'm going to read this one early. Squid Super Hunk says, nice bald head, Mark. He is bald, isn't he? Hey. You say, is he as in a deer? I don't know. Yeah, maybe. Yeah, no, it's OK. You're very bald, actually. I'm not as bad as you. I think you are. No, actually, the camera doesn't catch some of the peach fuzz I have on my head. Yeah, I mean, I can't figure out your face, right? You're both wearing caps. That's it. All right, everybody. Let's do it like, Mark, you you open the door on this one. That's on you. I know, I know. I did it wantonly and willingly. That's that's all good. All right. Well, let's carry on there, guys. Let's see. Bitter truth strikes again. Thanks so much. Hey, Nadir, why are you ignoring me to debate? Let's debate. Is chronic embryology compatible with medical science? Thoughts, Nadir? Now, I don't the people who are running away from the debates are actually the atheists. Look, the people with the big channels, the YouTube channel, they try to debate current science and they were defeated very badly. And you are yourself witnesses. I can call it. I can mention their names. They suffered terrible defeats. And now what is happening is the Quran is coming to an unchallengeable position here on modern day debate. Well, I mean, the fact that Mark and other people are coming forward, that's because they're trying to fill the void. They're trying to fill the void left behind by the retreating atheists because they don't want to admit the things which Mark admits. Like, yes, the Quran did correct six scientific errors in the Quran in the Bible. Now, in terms of his debate challenge, it was James, who has already denied that. He said, you've got to debate with your camera on. That's why you're not debating here. I mean, I'm open because there is nobody else left to debate. So sure, I'll debate you. But one of the miracles and one of the points I want people to understand is the Quran is unchallengeable here on modern day debate. Arun Ra, Madhila Hanta and even the Christians, they're all running away from the scientific evidence of the Quran. That's us and that is one of the evidences for this book. Well, I like to address that because he did talk about me. So, yeah, I kind of I enjoy debating. I sort of I don't like it when people say, hey, atheists won't debate. I kind of feel I need to step up. I'm not going to speak for other people. I think bitter truth is actually really good. I know he is reluctant to use his camera and that's OK. I get that. But I think you should debate him if not here on another platform. I think that atheists are stepping up.  We all have sort of, you know, there's there's Christians and Muslims. I'd like the challenge, but they're not up. You know, they wouldn't pay attention to me to be honest with you. And I don't mean this to me. I kind of feel like I'm punching down at the moment. So, you know, I can sort of see them as not, you know, I don't think your arguments are particularly strong. So I don't think they would actually go in for it because, you know, what's in it for them, basically, is my question. Like, do you have a big following? Do you have, you know, audience members that will come in and support you and and sort of, you know, provide another option of who to talk to kind of thing? I'm really only here because you said atheists won't debate you and I'm an atheist. I'll debate you better truth than atheists till debate you. So what I'd ask, Nadia, is you stop saying atheists won't debate you because that is clearly untrue. It is a false statement.  And so I don't want to mean being this harshly, but what you're doing is essentially clout chasing. You're saying, hey, big names come and come and see me. You're not a big name Nadia. I don't know why they would. Well, can I just say one thing real quick on that? I'm glad you raised this issue and I'll prove to you that they are running away. And I'll give you irrefutable evidence. First of all, I have already debated them. OK, they lost very bad. When I say they're running away, they're running away from the commitment they made publicly because in this debate I did, I'll just throw out a name like Aaron Ron, a positive profit. I said, let's debate scientific miracle. They all said, yes, yes, sure, we'll do that. I think, great, guys, as soon as the debate was over, AP sent out an email saying, let's try, let's try not to talk about other speakers. OK, I'll just name. But I have a re-debated courtesy. But yeah, the fact that you debated them, that's fine. But let's not talk about any private engagements. The point here is, I won't mention the name. The point here is they are running away not from debating me, but from debating the honoring, the commitment they made in front of everybody. And the problem here is they're debating anonymous weirdos on the internet. And they're debating teenage girls. And I am a bigger scholar than the teenage girls they are debating with. Now, I don't want to mention the names of people, but they are. So they are that my problem here is if they were they are debating people who are anonymous weirdos on the internet, then why are they running away from me when they're running away from the commitment they have already made? That's the scientific evidence for Prophet Muhammad. It's not about me. See, I'm only as good as the Quran allows me to be. My point here is they're not going to want to look, Mark, you have already conceded that, look, that the Quran corrected six scientific errors in the Bible. And I'm using that for prosthylization purposes now. They don't want their names to be used for that. OK, that's why they are running away. Well, I do want to address that because you did sort of say what I said. And what I said is the Quran may have gotten six things right that were wrong in the Bible, but I think like my position actually is that it got way more wrong than it got right. Like the Bible doesn't speak about lamps and stars in the sky. Don't speak about all these other stuff like like where where seeming comes from and things like that. It doesn't speak upon stuff like that. I would be hard pressed to say whether which is more right to the Bible or the Quran, I kind of think it I sort of lean towards the Bible because the Quran makes these statements, which are so obviously untrue. But, you know, that's that's another story. Well, OK, let's just go along with that. See, that is still enough to debunk the divinity of Christ. It is enough to debunk Christianity altogether. So let's just go along with it. Let's say Muhammad, where the false prophet, the Christians now need to answer. How does this alleged false prophet correct six scientific errors in their book? How did he bring better answers than the very Lord and Savior himself? That's tap out. That's game over for Christianity. So that's why, you know, this is one of the most powerful list evidences today Muslims have where we can go to the Christian and say, look, you guys, you guys are wrong. And now we have our eighth and not just you, but other atheists as well as well have come forward and has also conceded to that. And so now we've got to make the Christians understand this is game over for them. And that's why they will now participate in these science debates. They are running away because they know that the scientific errors in their books are laughable and this man named Muhammad is correcting them. They're not going to participate in a debate like that. Only Islam is the only religion which will debate Quran as the science. All the Jews and the Christians and the Hindus, they will all run away. That's the way it's been for 30 years. So I think the big win, it's a big win for atheism and Islam that today we are the only ones who will debate science. In our books, OK, all because Christians will not do that. They they're very, very selective on what topics they will debate. And they'll debate like, so you don't debate morality. OK, does God exist? They will debate these cherry topics that will not do the catastrophic damage to their faith. I was giving you 10 seconds to wrap up there. But I'm good. Let's try to move on. We have all kinds of questions that are coming in here. So keep them coming in. And I do have to ask, you know, our speakers here. Not everybody. So just excuse me. So, Mark, Nadir, either of you have any time constrictions or would you like to get a drink, take a bathroom break? I'm good. I think maybe like 10 more minutes I got. And then I can we can call it a day, maybe. OK, we got. Yeah, because we got what probably about 15 more super chats to go through. So if it's all right with you, I'm going to set a one minute timer and we'll try to get through as many of these as we can. So I'm just going to save the live chat here. You know, maybe one or more to two or more super chats. And we got to call it from there. So not that we're reading out just if they come in. So let's carry on and try to get through these. So Squid Super Hunk says, if something is scientifically unfalsifiable or otherwise can't be tested or corroborated scientifically, isn't that the exact definition of unscientific? One minute. Well, if you're talking about gods and goddesses and the belief in the supernatural, the scientific world are not going to deny, confirm or deny that. They're not going to use words like this is unscientific. Now, atheists can do that, but that's not the scientific. That's not what the scientific world believes in. In fact, science actually promotes issue of miracles, they actually promote people believing in God, because that does actually help heal people and that is scientific.  They're in depression, they're crying.  So actually, the medical world, scientific world is very cool with with the issue of God and miracles, and they actually do promote it. All right. Yeah, I'd like to add something to that if that's that's cool. All right. If you can do it quickly, because we we're going to try to get through these. Yeah. So it actually is science investigates the belief in God, not not the God itself. So the belief in God and beliefs and psychological states in general are investigated by science that is covered under the scientific methodology because we can investigate this using scientific methods. But it doesn't actually investigate the supernatural claims. That's when Nadir's got it wrong just because a belief in something may help you through a time of stress doesn't mean that that belief is being investigated. The the thing itself is being investigated by science, only the belief. So he's got it wrong again. Let's try to move on from there, guys. So let's scroll down here. Well, does Nadir want a last word because that was kind of harsh? Well, I got a last word. Yeah, OK, go ahead. I was I had some time limited time, so it's up to you. Yeah. Yeah. So all of that has been debunked by science itself. They do actually investigate the supernatural, the supernatural. I'll give you two examples. There is an example of a nun whose body who was buried like many years ago and her body is still preserved. That's in Missouri. Just go ahead and Google that. Now, of course, Muslims show the same type of miracle and science has confirmed it. There is if you just go put in YouTube, Hindu milk drinking miracle, it has been confirmed by science that what we find from this milk, from this Ganesh or this idol, it's actually drinking milk. That miracle, you could see there's also another miracle about Mary crying tears of olive oil. Science actually did confirm that the tears in her eyes were were olive oil and just Google Mary tears or in the history channel. The history channel has a documentary on that. Of course, we can also see that this is all the work of the devil. Making idols drink milk and things like that. But the issue about the supernatural now is actually confirmed by science now. It is confirmed and they have no explanation for these three phenomenons, which we see. So this is a death blow for atheism. There's no way their beliefs can be true. So now atheism is going down like a clown, like Christianity is and here. And this is a clear scientific evidence which disproves both belief systems. All right, well, let's carry on from there. Just having some fun in the live chat. Yeah, this is almost as big as my head. It's fun. All right.  Some of you are far saying says Koran says Chia, take, take a bit, takib, meaning a piercing torch, which exactly describes a burning asteroid piercing the atmosphere. Where did you get stars from, Mark? Sorry if I messed up that she had to keep.  They are they are sort of undergoing nucleus fusion, basically, where hydrogen is converted into helium. They're not and sort of heavier elements are created in this nuclear fusion process. So they aren't torches and meteorites are not burning torches. They're their their bodies of usually heavy metals like iron and things like that, that are past remnants of, say, supernovae explosion. So one of these things is scientifically accurate. Burning torch is not scientifically accurate. Now, you might say, hey, it's sort of it's hyperbole. It's it's a it's a, you know, sort of description of kind of what it is. You know, and sort of this, that's fine. That's fine. But it's not scientifically accurate because a scientifically accurate thing would say what it is, not what it's like. Do we also get a closing as well? I wouldn't mind just quickly having a closing like maybe a minute or so. Well, well, yeah, as I say, before we get to close things, we'll see if we can get through a few more of that. These super chats, yeah, absolutely. I just want to make sure. Yeah, yeah. No, we'll definitely get you guys final thoughts as long as we can get rolled through these super squid. Super Honk says you can show agreement between parts of Spider-Man, comic books and modern science is a Spider-Man scientific. If everything that contains some truth is scientific, what is the value in that word? One minute there. No, you can't. You cannot do what you're what you are claiming you can do. But there are certain cases. I'll give you a better example. There are some cases where you'll find books of the ancients where it could actually agree with modern science. True, that could happen. Again, we just call the cops. Cops can explain that. It could be a coincidence, observed, could be a plagiarized, could be something which is he was a scientist. Where the scientific miracle is that the agreement with science came in triplets. OK, so we're not talking about an independent verse. No book of the past has a triplet, reverses of oceanography. Each one of them can be correctly interpreted to agree with modern science. So and also the issue about sperm, a gender determination that it was a sperm. You will find agreement in the Quran on that. People of the past believed in all kinds of wrong things, which I shared with you. So this time I think where the argument is in the triplet, which proves it's a miracle. All right, moving on, let's do 30 seconds. Guys, we'll really try to get these banged out. Some of your first aid says, Mark, the armen hypothesis is still improving 165 years later. Yet scientists still believe it to be true and use it because it makes correct predictions, 30 seconds. The hypothesis, I didn't quite catch them. The Riemann hypothesis that's built R-I-E-M-A-N-N. So I'll let you look that up and respond. Well, I mean, I presume he's talking about the book that I brought up maybe. Yeah, and it's basically mathematics, which mathematics is a language. It's not it's not sort of empirical science. It's used in science because it can quantify things, but it is not by itself a science. In sciences, empirical and mathematics is not. It's a language is how we describe things in science. So I think you've sort of got a category error there where you're sort of saying, hey, this mathematical equation is by itself science, where it is. Science is the describing of it. It's not actually mathematics specifically. All right. And let's move on. Sorry to as Leo and David, David, we're going to carry on to some more pointed questions. Squid Superhunk says vaguely translated mundane observations are what we are calling, quote unquote, scientific thoughts. So, yeah, as I was pointing out, the discovery about, let's just say, internal waves, this was actually done by a scientific firm and the guy actually won an award for it. And if you I did not share with you how he made those discoveries, but he basically did a lot, it required technological instruments for him to discover this. All of what I have shared with you about this, about the three miracles about the about the agreement with oceans. It's all based upon modern science and scientists discovering it. Not vague observations. All right. Robin Webster says science is a process. The Quran provides no methodology is not repeatable or falsifiable. Submit the Quran for peer review. Mail slash female is sex, not gender. 30 seconds on the clock. OK, then don't try to show errors with it. Yeah, I'll say no, no, no, that's not the scientific method. You see, you are just trying to quibble here. You are not able to answer the scientific agreement with the Quran. So you're trying to get out on a technicality. OK, so the issue here, all I'm showing you is that the Quran is in conformity with modern science. That's what I mean by scientific, and it's perfectly fine to use it that way. And I'm also showing that there are no contradictions between the two. All right. Samir Farsain says to you, Mark, 96 percent of internal waves are less than 1000 meters deep. So, yes, the Quran is correct. You can barely see your hand and not see it debunk debunking was debunked. 30 seconds, Mark. Yeah, so the idea that that Allah is the one stopping the light, that's not scientifically accurate. So that's actually completely false. But that's the whole point that, you know, you're sort of giving this book, which says, hey, Allah does this, Allah does that. These demons do this, these demons do that. It's not scientifically accurate.  Big freaking deal. All right. And I will apologize to anybody in the live chat as we are running low on time. So if we missed your chat, do apologize if it's not terribly constructive. So let's see. Bitter truth says Quran never says clinging clot or blood clot. This is going back to the last question. We're probably going to move on. Sorry, bitter truth, just because we already talked about that quite a bit. For Nadir, what does Muhammad say to drink camel urine? I don't know if we should really go down that path right now either. No, let's just move on. Sorry, guys, we are low on time. So we want to get something we can actually get our teeth sunk into here. Evidence of God. Nadir Bible versus a Quran scientific accuracy debate. James contacted you a week ago. Please accept my challenge and prepare to become a Christian. That's from Rick. Yeah, definitely. Rick, if you want to challenge me, I can't find Christians who are willing to debate science. OK, but what you're doing, Rick, you know, I'm first, I'm glad that you actually did come forward to do this. But what you're doing, you're filling the void. All the Christian apologists here on a modern day debate and not only that, but for the last 30 years, they run away from science debate. Only Islam is the only religion that answers the challenge. And we lead that debate and win that debate.  I've done this for 30 years. OK, I've done this from the very beginning. So when Marx says, well, you know, you're really not a big. It doesn't matter. I've been here for 30 years and I can tell you one thing. Christians, Jews and and and Hindus, they do not open up their Bibles or books for scientific criticism. Only the religion of Islam does that. All right. In Islam, yeah, through Throne Mountain on Earth to prevent lands from moving. I think he did not know about tectonic plates or he skipped geoclass. Same for biology and the formation of the embryo. So I think what's happening here is they're trying to do damage control. They're thinking, OK, if I can show some kind of error with the Quran, all the scientific evidence is going to go poof, but it's not going to work. First of all, the Quran says nothing about what you are talking about. And so we could just move on from there. All right. Let's see here, bit of truth. I defeated you, Nadir, your claims from doesn't form in the testes. And next debate, you were unable to provide evidence. God created sky without pillar. I'm an atheist, Nadir, and I'm willing to use camera. Thirty seconds. Yeah, talk to James. I will accept any challenges. Again, you know, we I am because there really is nobody else left to debate. All the even though I appreciate you coming forward. But the undeniable fact is that atheists are running away from the commitments they made to debate this topic. That's an undeniable fact. So Shane, the pain will spend a little time with this one. It says it's not a scientific fact when you can change the meaning of the verse when you want. That was for twenty dollars, so we'll put up to a minute there. Any thoughts? Yeah, no, I never changed the meaning of any verse. I never played any kind of interpretation. It was actually our buddy here who was changing the meaning of verses. He was talking about that the Quran was talking about, you know, shooting stars. He's trying to point out that, you know, the Quran talked about determination of gender was taking place in this verse, and it wasn't. It was talking about now making the making it now. OK, so he misrepresented the Quran over there. And I look, you are what's I've been sitting here for almost two hours now waiting for anybody to show that I'm just misrepresenting the Quran. That never happened. What's happening here is you are trying to salvage this debate. You're trying to give him ammunition to use against me. What's the debates over? All right.  And you invoked Mark several times. So Mark, 30 seconds on the floor. We'll go on. We'll move on from this one. Yeah, yeah, I don't know what what debate like a deal and the deal was attending. He clearly changed the stars to lamps and then back to stars. And they said they meet here. He's changing it all over the place. You know, you can rewind it. You can watch it again. He said that they were lamps. It's talking about lamps. And then the next time he's talking about it, he does a lot of this. You know, he said, oh, well, if it's wrong about waves under the ocean, it could mean barriers is something else. This is this is what he's doing. He's changing it to meet his needs at the time. That's all. All right. Flanker 420 says, Nadir, if any of the scientific facts were the opposite case, couldn't you decipher the text to fit either way? Seems very much like a Rorschach test. I don't know what a Rorschach test is.  You know, it's a butterfly or something like that. Rorschach. I'll have to look it up. Look, again, this is another attempt to salvage the debate. They're trying to somehow try to claim that I'm doing some interpretation game that just didn't happen. I've been sitting here for two hours waiting for these type of refutation that just didn't happen. The debate is over. OK, now there is clear evidence, like, for example, barriers in the sea. That's not an interpretation game. Internal ways, no light, no interpretation game is playing here. In fact, it's you guys who are doing that. Not us. It's time. Perfect. All right. The nun says we'll just ask the first part, the second part. We've already hammered that one just to death, guys. So Nadir, why is the Koran so dependent on the Bible? It is not dependent on the Bible. It is correcting the Bible as Mark Wood and other atheists are even have conceded. And it's so obvious it's undeniable. One of the miracles of Muhammad is that he was able to know what those scientific errors in the Bible was, and he presented corrections towards it. Now you can watch that all of my last debate, which I did. Email me, I'll give it to you. And that's one of the many miracles of the Holy Koran. And that was a great way of showing that Jesus cannot be God due to all the scientific errors in the book. But the undeniable fact, which was what we have seen for the last 30 years, Christians don't debate this. Christians run away from this topic. OK, Muslims are here. Now you need to answer that. All right, let's move on from there. And yeah, no, the camel, you're in common. That was not on topic. I'm sorry. If you don't like it, you can email moderndaydebate at gmail.com. That's yeah, James there. So let's carry on there, guys. Reuben Webster, none of the miracles you mentioned are confirmed. So this is the second last one. So that's just a claim. Did you want to say anything about that 30 seconds or he's in denial? He's in denial. I've presented unlike Brad. I'm sorry, I forgot your name. Unlike my opponent here, I showed the exact scientific journal. You hit pause on your YouTube page. And then I showed the verse of the Koran and I showed the agreement between the two. So I've already presented my references. I came tonight to debate armed to the teeth with with authentic and verifiable scientific journals. OK, so their claim is just not true.  And it's about you now accepting reality. All right. Yeah, just just on the camel thing, it's actually in the hadiths, not the Koran. And the debate is about the Koran. So there's there's that. Oh, yeah, let's try it. Like I said, we did really well to keep this one out of the mud. I think everybody and it's this has been really productive, I think. So last super chat and then we will give a minute to each speaker to close out. Another perspective asks, what will your mom do against West peace and safety? So I think they're asking like what maybe policies you would implement if you were in the West, I'm not sure how to interpret that. But maybe that's a good way to go about this last one. Thirty seconds. Policies, I'm a little bit confused as far as what he's asking. Well, I'm not sure. It says, what will your mom do against West? I think it's kind of a big question. But it almost sounds like Islamophobia or some kind of like somehow we're against the West or something. And now it's a little bit of a big question there. So I'm sorry. I think that's that's probably going to be where we'll wrap up. Because like I said, you know, Nadir is in a bit of a hurry and we did have a really long back and forth there. So big round of virtual applause to both of our speakers. And I'll close it out like I usually do. Before I get our closing. Yes, of course, I was going to say, I always do it the EU style. So Mark, first minute on the clock, yours. OK, so again, I'm going to go back to my introduction where Sean Rafferty basically said, and I'll repeat this thing because you want to see how much this fits with what we've seen today. Even for those subfields where there is a significant element of interpretation, those interpretations are still based on and constrained by physical evidence and interpretations are always provisional, pending possible refutation by contradictory evidence, pseudoscience by comparison is scornful of evidence. The pseudoscience just reaches a preferred conclusion in advance, then selects evidence often removed from any relevant context to lend supposed support for their conclusions. Often the preconceived conclusion is the one that justifies some health closely held identity or ideology. Contradictory evidence is waved away or ignored. Or as a last resort, one can always claim conspiracy to keep pseudoscientific ideas suppressed, i.e. atheists, science, wahidahi, whatever he says. So. Beautiful. That's that's what I want to say. All right. Well, and that there and I will just pull this out. Some flower did put in for ten dollars. And I'm sorry that I missed that there. I was looking for specific super chats. He says, excuse me, I encourage everyone to read the NIH paper. I cited about wine. It was first published in the last three months and sites. 153 other people papers. It is titled moderate wine consumption and a health and narrative review. So sorry that I missed that there. So let's give the floor to Nadir one minute for your closing thoughts there. Yeah, I have I have already quoted a paper which acknowledges that there's some good in that. But the harm outweighs any good. OK, and also your big mistake here is this is as far as drinking wine for some wine for some benefit. That's only so long. That's in today's time. Nobody is going to recommend this evil like before we knew about fetal alcohol syndrome, nobody is going to sacrifice children's brain damage when you give it to pregnant women because, you know, it's a little bit good for your heart. No one's going to give this wine to five year old kids to drink. No, because the harm of it outweighs the benefit. So your point for sure is totally debunked before the science of it was even known because then you're going to be giving it to women and children. So the problem is this guy doesn't understand science. He doesn't understand that Muhammad gave a scientifically superior. He doesn't understand, but he doesn't want to accept it. That Muhammad gave a scientifically superior answer on the issue of alcohol, not drinking it, leading to Muslim women. Fifty times as likely to give birth to a fetal alcohol child. That's what the studies demonstrate. That good of it outweighs any good of the harm of it outweighs any benefits of which of alcohol and just email me. I'll send you the journal on that just to confirm with you there, dear. This is your one minute closing on the debate itself. I don't know if you were. Yeah, I was going to say if you sound like you were answering any questions, so did you want a minute to close your thoughts there? Oh, yeah, yeah. Let me get a minute here. Sure thing. You know, as I was on my phone and maybe you've got the notification to here, I literally in the middle of the debate received a notification of one of these people will mention their names as a big YouTube channel debating some anonymous weirdo on Islam, science, all these things. This is my point. They are running away because they know they cannot beat the case. They saw the terrible debate defeats. They suffered in the past and they're doing. And so that's one of the miracles of the Quran. I think what was funny tonight was Mark trying to show articles in scientific journals contradicting the text of the Quran. He fumbled, tried to misquote the Quran. We had a lot of fun on that, I think. But the scientific evidence is clear. I'm just repeating myself here. The scientific miracle is in the triplet. It was just an individual verse on seas. Yeah, maybe anybody could get that right. It could be called the cops on it. But the scientific miracle is in the triplet and there's no scientific errors pertaining to seas, proving this is a miracle because this cannot be done by research or observation because those things come with trial and error. There's no trial and error in the Quran. All right. Looks like the deer is wrapped it up there. So that's time. So yeah, if you haven't already done so, hit the like button. Share this out in those spaces. You like having these discussions and keep the debate rolling. You know, we'd like seeing everybody in the live chat hanging out and putting in your two cents. So 60 seconds is pretty short. Yeah, it can be a little short there. So I do see you. We're going to close out, everybody. So once again, big round of virtual applaus