Why not demand a source? Should we just assume everything that is said on the internet is correct? Also, why shouldn't it be used as a talking point? If we think information is suspect, should we just ignore it and assume that people never present hearsay and falsity as fact?
But does Firebow present anything even remotely questionable? Its not as if he's saying something too ludricous. Even if you want to see his validity, you'd only need to google a few of his examples to see their validity or ask for specific cites (like points 4, 7, 8 and 10). Asking for every single source is being a tool.
Right, and the example of me picking on semantics is...
Here:
Edward Lorenz would be disappointed in your probability modelling, which can only be accurate if you were rolling dice and flipping a coin each time.
Firebow was merely giving the example that if the Qu'ran's scientific knowledge was based on guesses or loose knowledge, it would be highly unlikely that every single guess would be correct. You picked on him using hard numbers to show a point. That is picking on semantics. Instead of him just saying "it is like", you picked on him saying "it is like as if".
You are speaking about a physician 'of the time'. Who in the deserts of Arabia, where water was rarely available, 1400 years ago, could've guessed that every animal and human being is primarily made of water? And as I pointed out earlier, just because you need consume a product everyday in high quantities doesn't necessarily mean you have been created from it. For example, we can't live without taking in oxygen. Does your logic imply that we are made out of oxygen gas?
You make a good point, all organisms are made of water but some, like anaerobic bacterias (which was unheard of at the time), don't need air (infact are destroyed by it). I don't believe in the Qu'ran, I like Jesus, but I can atleast appreciate a person who can knowledgably support what they believe in and not bash for no logical reason a system of beliefs.