how was this irrelevant to anything i've said? and to the other post, i wouldnt call that a debate either since her arguments completely disintegrated within like 2-3 replies. you're currently showing similar incompetence.
lol i've looked at this much more than you, a muslim, has done. dont assume things that i may know or may not know.
yeah you're pretty simple. regarding your last sentence, i say instead of copying links you haven't properly looked into, why dont you argue why it is incorrect or not factual.
the qurans strongest scientific miracle claim, embryology, is bs vague poetic verses construed as a scientific miracle. what you don't know is that those verses are much more suitable to the scientific knowledge already available in the time of the quran. in particular, greek embryology. aristotle wrote that bones develop then the flesh over it. infact if you actually see both cases of embryology in the quran and by aristotle, it becomes apparent that they all use the similar vocabulary in similar order: sperm, menstrual blood and flesh moulding over bones. thereby, it is very very unlikely one can credibly construe alaqah, nutfah or whatever to fit modern science and not aristotles greek science. but then you're also talking about your special leech like clot, based on the term 'alaqah', a leech like substance or a clinging substance - according to your modern day muslim apologists.
but the term easily refers to a 'blood clot', especially according to most trusted translators including Yusuf Ali and Pickthall, and many others. Of course someone like you would just say they are wrong. the term blood clot, as mentioned before, also lucidly corresponds with science of the hellenic perioid, which was amply available to them at the time. further furthermore, arabian scholars around the time also explain embryology in a similair fashion to the quran and the hellenic period, that we form from sperm and menstrual blood, im not going to spend too much time and itemise them, in the age of information you go do that yourself, but some names (among others) such as al-tabari and al-razi support that alaqah refers to blood clot, not a clinging substance. so use your brain to see what term 'alaqah' is most likely to refer to. if this isn't enough, just google on your own time. plenty have debunked this claim much more extensively and thoroughly, that it is impossible to still stand by this claim without being an narrow minded stupid idiot.
i thought the embryology claim is unbeatable too at first, arguably the qurans strongest miracle claim (the rest are weak), yet it completely falls apart with some common sense and being open-minded a little. but im sure you've already assumed im wrong before even reading what i've wrote, which is but a fraction of the argument debunking the embryology claim. in fact, it was this claim in particular that finally made me leave islam.