lol

will do, I love biology so this will be interesting

I've found enough to debunk embryology in the Qur'an. Read them if you wish. I will cite important sections from each.

Keith L. Moore knows that the Koran is wrong when it says that bones are formed first, then flesh is placed upon them.

"Look further at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh ..." (Al-Baqara 2:259)

The Koran gives the impression that first the skeleton is formed, and then it is clothed with mustle. Dr. Bucaille knows perfectly well that this is not true. The muscles and the cartilage precursors of the bones start forming from the somite at the same time. At the end of the eighth week there are only a few centers of ossification started but the fetus is already capable of some muscular movement."

Source

STAGES OF PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO HIPPOCRATES (460 BC)

STAGE 1. sperm

STAGE 2. mother's blood descends around the membrane

STAGE 3. flesh, fed through umbilicus

STAGE 4. bones

Clearly this shows that 1000 years before the Qur'an the development of the embryo was divided into stages.

Source

STAGES OF PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE (350 BC)

STAGE 1. sperm

STAGE 2. catamenia -- menstrual blood

STAGE 3. flesh

STAGE 4. bones

STAGE 5. around the bones grow the fleshy parts

Source

For comparison with the Qur'an:

QURANIC STAGES OF PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT

STAGE 1. nutfa -- sperm

STAGE 2. 'alaqa -- clot

STAGE 3. mudagha -- piece or lump of flesh

STAGE 4. 'adaam -- bones

STAGE 5. dressing the bones with muscles

It is abundantly clear to anyone looking at this objectively that not only did the Qur'an borrow ideas from pre-existing knowledge of Embryology from Gala, Aristotle, and Hippocrates, but it did so incorrectly - bones before muscles is completely inaccurate. 

the guy is only piking the things that Hippocrates where correct on and removing the wrong things. he says that both the man and the women has sperm which is incorrect. the guy should add the entire list of the mistakes he made as well.

you see If it was copied by them then how could Mohammed (pbuh) know what was correct and removed that which was incorrect? how did Mohammed (pbuh) know what was correct and what wasn't?

the Quran says we bring them together and clothe them with flesh. it doesn't say the bones are created separately and then the flesh covers it after they are complete. that's simply him (the guy in the quote) misinterpreting the text

For all the efforts Atheists make online, whatyou do consider of the efforts of religious zealots that go door to door, establish protests, lobby the federal government (the Christian Coalition is one of the largest lobbyist organization in the world), TV and radio televangelists, etc...

Nobody spreads the word of their beliefs like theists do. 

Can't say I've ever had a random stanger knock on my door and ask me if I've kicked Jesus out of my heart.

I love it how you tried to spin the argument to make theists look bad. So you're not actually gonna coomment on the original point of my post?

I agree that agnosticism is a rational stance. We (as in: no one in the entire world) can say that they know how the world was created. Agnostic people are open to all possibilities.

Atheism is also rational. The difference though is that they say, "We don't believe in any religion. They are all unsupported by science and make many baseless assumptions." while the agnostic people say, "Any religion might as well be right. We just don't know which, if any." Atheists know that they might as well be wrong in the end of time when God send them to hell, but they don't believe that they are since there is no reason to do so.

Wrong. YOu have a very twisted definition of rationality. Atheism denies any existance of higher power (''God/s'', it doesnt have to relate to religion) despite the fact there is no reason or evidence to support that.  And thats all there is to irrationality. Believeing in something ( in this case that higher power doesnt exist) without any reason or evidence behind it IS IRRATIONAL, regardless if your belief is a negative form of other belief.  And by reason I mean the reason that supports your belief (that there is no God). The lack of reason for opposite belief does not equal to a reson or evidence to yours.You need something to support your own statement and you dont have that 

Atheists also acknowledge the fact that they are equally likely to be send to another dimension created by fairies after death; another possibility that agnostics will not rule out.

Atheists believe in reason, agnostics will not make a stance and theists believe in unreasonable supernatural beings.

Okay, whats the reason for DENYING supernatural beings?  Again, just because there are no reasons to believe in them doesnt mean thats the reason NOT to believe in them. Agnostics have it right...they neither accept nor deny the existance because there is no evidence to support either stance. 

"And tell me more about these facts that prove God doesnt exist. It takes just as much faith to believe higher power doesnt exist then to  believe it does."

We cannot prove that a god doesn't exist. But we can prove that God, as he is described in the Bible, doesn't exist. Because the Bible gives him attributes that makes him easy to disprove. I have a video touching on this subject, if you'd care to see it in action.

God has little to none actual describtion in the Bible. 

Furthermore, are you implying that it takes just as much faith to believe that fairies don't exist as it takes to not believe in them? What are the facts that proves that fairies don't exist?

Theists make themselves look bad with profound ignorance. He's only reinforcing this standpoint via real world examples.

For every 1 bad thing theists have done in real world, there are at least 10 more good things they did as well. For every bad thing atheists have done on internet or real world...there are almost zero good things they did in real world or internet. Unless you count upvoting a page on reddit or a leftover starbucks change donation.

Is it irrational to believe that leprechauns or unicorns don't exist or the flying spaghetti monster? There is an abundance of evidence - open your eyes. Do you see a unicorn? Do you read about real life unicorns in the news? Do you see Unicorns at the zoo? Same is applicable to a God.

Becaue by definition, God would be in the news and in the zoos and it lives on our small insiginificant planet, right? Yeah thats a really nice comparison. If you're gonna resort to comparing a concept of higher power, something thats been recognized in logic, philisophy and orgin of universe as a likely existance to characters from stories from children, who can easly be disproved by using their own characteristics and background, then just tell me now so i can stop typing here. Also, please note I was referring to a deistic God/higher power, and not the one in the Bible and abrahamic religions

Agnostics don't believing in anything - they lack a belief entirely. Atheists don't necessarily deny the existence, merely disbelieve in it. For instance, an Atheist can be agnostic in regard to logic/philosophy and yet retain an atheistic belief. 

Same can be said for a theist really.