Do you see how our two ideas of proof differ a bit? The loose and imprecise ways in which those subjects are addressed in the Quran is an entirely different standard of evidence than you'd find in a scientific journal. The sort of evidence that I'm looking for of Quran's non-human authorship isn't something you've provided for me with yet. Even if the Quran went into far greater depth than it does about the Big Bang, life and the nature of the universe, it still wouldn't stand as scientific evidence to me that it was authored or inspired by God himself. Plenty of secularists have made accurate prophecies about the universe and nature too. I'm familiar with these arguments you're making but from my perspective they take considerable reinterpretations of the text.
"The age of the universe is 13.77 billion years, the age of the earth is 4.54 billion years. So, 13.77 divided by 4.54 = 3.033 or 3:1 ratio, Just as six days divided by two days (simplified) = 3 or a ratio of 3:1" struck me as quite a stretch. It's not exactly an obvious interpretation, and it's certainly one that the Muslims in my life agree with at all.
The passages cited that correspond vaguely with modern embryology don't convince me that the words of the Quran are divine either.
"And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay. Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging. Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators." is one of the ones I've seen cited a few times.
The Quran's words here are poetic, vague, and leave plenty of room for interpretation. Terms like "clinging clot" and "lump of flesh" certainly aren't precise scientific descriptions. If the findings were truly of a scientific nature and the scientific method were really performed, I'd expect far better.
I also was just reading that the Greeks had a surprisingly advanced understanding of embryology that predates the Quran by several centuries. For example, Galen described the stages of development from a fertilized egg to the formation of bones and musculature. The author made the point that the Quran's description is likely based on this earlier knowledge, rather than being a miraculous revelation of something previously unknown.
That water point is similarly flawed. There were societies well before the emergence of Islam that understood the critical importance of water, and the language it uses to speak about it is poetic and not the sort of science that leaves me feeling convinced they were onto anything all that profound. I don't believe at all they had a far greater biochemical understanding of water than we do today.
I'm a little unsure why you're asking specific examples on the suicide bombing point. There are countless examples of it. Groups like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS have all been known to use suicide bombings as a tactic and have directly claimed that they are doing so in the name of Islam.
You're right that not every suicide bombing in history is at the hands of your religion, it's actually a relatively recent phenomenon from what I understand. But statistically, it's a fact that the majority of the suicide bombings of the past decades have been carried out by muslims. Does that mean each of the nearly 2 billion muslims deserve the blame for it? Absolutely not. I think muslims are the primary victims of islamic extremism. But that this bombing is being done in the name of Islam is every bit worth talking about as Christians who believe in bombing their neighbor.
When people believe they're acting on the will of the God, sometimes it will just present as a reason to be kind to others. Other times it can manifest as God hates fags signs, and wars, and planes flown into buildings. And that it's each one of these people who believe they're interpreting the words of their scripture correctly is why I think religion is so very dangerous. It's not everyone who reads the Quran and sees in it what you do. I don't see that your subjective interpretation of these ancient words is any more correct than a Catholics over Protestant interpretation of the Bible. I don't need to be an expert in the Quran to know that there are many Muslims who strongly disagree with your peaceful interpretation of it.
