Yahoo Answers? Seriously?? Look at a typical response from that link:
"The Hobbit" makes reference to the existence of mountains. That mountains exist is a scientific fact. This has no bearing on the factual validity of the more fantastic things described in the book. There is nothing more shameful than someone with the ability to reason, who willfully abdicates that ability. Especially in the egocentric notion that they have a personal relationship with a magical entity that creates universes. (rated as “good” by six people)
And for Yahoo Answers that is indeed extremely typical. A lot of the stuff there that actually goes beyond mere childishness still hardly even qualifies as an argument—or really as anything other than pure denial:
Even a broken clock is right once or twice a day depending on whether you use the AM/PM or 24 hour system.
anything can fit the facts if you try hard enough
Like, for example, attempts to deflect the issue with extremely clichéd misconceptions which have nothing to do with anything:
the koran is a very sad second hand version of a myth that was plagarized in the first place—if you had an intellectual honesty you'd see that the koran is myth—based on the myths the hebrews plagarized from the sumerians and egyptians. Because it is a second hand story islam is an even sillier religion that christianity which is sillier than the original judism.
Or just misrepresenting the arguments themselves in the first place:
The earth is NOT shaped like an egg.
The universe is NOT "in a state of gas."
Really there are only a few serious attempts at refutation in the whole bunch. Some of them are attempts to put forth the idea that “the translations have been manipulated” but it doesn’t take much searching to find that there are times when non-Muslim translators like Arberry render some of these passages in similar ways. And hey, I will be the first to admit that there are also times when Muslims will take things too far and see science where it isn’t. In fact I’m usually the first to notice and be annoyed. Not everything is about science. There are some passages where I want to tell them, “Down, boy: don’t get excited now.” Any argument can be taken too far.
Now let’s look at these serious attempts:
Incidentally, these two quotes contradict each other:
"The realization that the embryo develops in stages in the uterus was not discussed or illustrated until the 15th century A.D."
and
"The staging of human embryos was not proposed until the 1940's"
Were the stages illustrated in the 15th century, or not even proposed until the 1940s? If Dr. Moore actually said both of those things, then he was either a liar or a really crappy embryologist.
I don’t know anything about the original quotes nor about Moore. Frankly I don’t care either. I do know that this Moore guy is hardly the point of things. The point is that every stage of a human being’s development, right down the earliest microscopic level, is described in the text. That’s the ticket, guys! Find an inconsistency in the argument regarding the source material and completely ignore the actual subject at hand!
If it isn't expressed in figures, it's not science, it's opinion.
Can you show us an equation expressing the pressure, temperature and volume relationship of a gas, the relationship between force, mass and acceleration, or a simple chemical equation illustrating the production of iron from iron ore using carbon?
What...the...
I’m sorry, who said that The Qur’an actually was science? Last time I checked it wasn’t a biology textbook, it was just a holy text that happened to be highly prescient of what these textbooks contained. Can you show me a passage where there would have been any theological relevance for such a formula? Where it wouldn’t have been silly and awkward for one to somehow be worked into the text? Perhaps this one:
“O tribe of djinn and humans: if you are able to pass beyond the confines of heaven and earth then pass through! You will never pass through without authority! Against you will be loosed the heat of a mixture of (2) 2Cu2O + C ---> 4Cu + Co2 + (1) Zn and high velocity, heated O2, and you will not be helped.”
The shape and size of the Earth was known more than 800 years before the prophet. See Eratosthenes.
Yes, it was calculated once by Eratosthenes—but it was not known in Arabia!
The fact that the Moon reflects light from the Sun was also known to some, hundreds of years before the prophet was born. Some even claimed the Earth went round the Sun.
There is a reason why “some” is considered weasel words at Wikipedia and therefore forbidden.
The fact that the planets are in fixed orbits has been known since very ancient times, at least as far back as the Babylonians, since observations continued over a few years shows that they regularly appear in certain places and follow the same paths through the sky in relation to the "fixed" stars.
This has been known to the Chinese and the Indians too for a very long time. Measurement of the angles subtended at the surface of the Earth (there's those numbers again) will show any person with a glimmering of mathematics that the planets move in something close to circles. Yes, the Babylonians invented the division of a circle into 360 degrees. Why? For astronomical purposes.
But unlike them The Qur’an says that all of these bodies, including those “fixed” stars, follow a course.
As for embryology and reproduction, the butchering of slaughtered animals would show most of that to an ordinary man. Anyone who cared to investigate it more closely could fill in much more detail.
Including the microscopic ones?
Funny how these verses were all interpreted after science found the true answer.
No, there’s nothing remotely funny about that. Like I said this isn’t a textbook. Also I think he’s exaggerating. For example I’m pretty sure there’s a hadith somewhere specifically identifying the seven earths as seven layers to the one earth.
I will believe the science in the Quran the day a Quranic scholar hammers on the door of MIT and says "No you are looking at that the wrong way. The Quran says you must do this". and the scientist does it and lo and behold the Quran is right. But until that happens your quotes are nonsense.
Wow, what kind of a...
Even apart from the above do you really think that MIT scientist would listen to him? Even if his personal pride didn’t get in the way there’s always the empirical nature of his profession to think of. What’s he going to say when reporting what happened, “A little bird told me?”
The are scientific facts in ALL the holy books, and even some Chinese folklore. All mythology also contains some facts.
The Hopi Indians also have a very interesting prophecy that contains Facts.
Finally something interesting. But they still offer no evidence, no examples. None whatsoever. I'm guessing that the Hopi prophecy in question is the one quoted at the end of "Koyaanisqatsi", which has long since been exposed as a likely hoax. Feel free to look into it yourself. In any event it is nothing, nothing on the huge number of prophecies Muhammad has made, most of which were expressed in fairly clear terms, have come true by now, and have been listed on this board.
1. The accuracy of the Qur'an is not remarkable. All of its accurate points can be explained by simple observation of nature or by selective interpretation of scriptures.
2. Accuracy on individual points does not indicate overall accuracy. Just about every thesis that is wrong overall still has some accurate points in it.
This is a classic ploy by skeptics. If they come across something too accurate for them to explain then—without offering a single example, without offering any evidence at all—they just appeal to the general nature of their experience, in which people will overlook the misses and remember only the hits (when listening to a cold reader, for example). That they’re making such a non-sequitur is the key to understanding the true nature of this argument: it’s a projection. They’re the ones who are really overlooking the hits that they’re seeing right now in favor of whatever it is that they’re falsely perceiving to be misses, and using the “misses” as an excuse to ignore the evidence. The Qur’an describes such people as we seem to be looking at here quite a few times, and not in very complimentary terms, but I shall refrain from quoting it.
3. Claims about accuracy assume that the purpose of the Qur'an is to document scientific data. The purpose of the Qur'an is to teach religion, not science.
Straw man attack. It assumes nothing. It’s just that a few scientific facts happened to be dropped along the way during a book whose purpose is to teach us religion. Which isn’t to say that God was making a mistake or anything but science is not the thesis. Again it’s not a biology textbook is what I’m saying. If this book can stop every now and then to discuss a subject for one verse which doesn’t get brought up a second time then why couldn’t it sometimes touch on something scientific in an incidental way?
4. If the Qur'an's value is made to depend on scientific accuracy, it becomes valueless when people find errors in it, as some people invariably will.
Another straw man, with an unsupported claim tacked on top of it to boot. Yes, I know, every rationalist believes this quite stubbornly. Those poor, bruja stick-waving religions are stuck in the past and therefore inevitably leave the stamp of the past upon them. But you’ll notice they’re not showing us any errors. They just speak of this as some vague theoretical future possibility.
5. If occasional scientific accuracy shows overall accuracy of the Qur'an, the same conclusion must be granted to the Bible, Zend Avesta, and several other works from other religions, all of which can make the same claims to scientific accuracy.
Again, they just say this and expect us to take our word for it. It’s like just because they see all religions as being equally nonsensical and mythical, they expect everyone else in the world to be the same as them. Can anyone but the most blindly arrogant people think like this?
Let me repeat those words from earlier: “There is nothing more shameful than someone with the ability to reason, who willfully abdicates that ability.” Actually most of the page might be summed up well with this one quote:
I just don't want to read the Koran—I have no interest in the Koran—I don't care what it says.
but what about the one's who do? If a person's future is stolen by a gunman, and they aren't able to live their lives to the fullest, then How does the innocent victim receive his or her justice if their is no afterlife?
made made Adam's physical form with His own Hands. All of the other creations, angels, trees, animals, stars, galaxies, Allah 
