Is there a contradiction in the Qur'an?

[Abaddon_ire]

So anyway, resolve these claims

"Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2).
"We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59).
"But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).
"He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).

Did allah the shit create man from a blood clot, clay, dust, nothing or sperm?

ETA: Not to mention that we know no Adam ever existed anyway.

You're not worth my time, frankly speaking, taking god's name in vain in an Islam topic.

So you cannot resolve them. I accept your defeat.

Clay/dust components and the human body's have a lot in common. That's what the Qur'an relays to the layman back then, people  who have zero chemistry knowledge.

And there is a scientific reason for that which requires no allah the shit.

According to the picture above, what would be the best way to explain our carbon/silicon based origins fourteen centuries ago ... in layman's terms?

Life evolved on Earth which had those chemical elements. It was inevitable that life would contain the same elements in roughy similar proportions. Still no need for allah the shit.

The verses you're mentioning are really good reasons to believe.

Nope. They are directly contradictory and you cannot resolve them.

And there are plenty more where they came from. (Hint: The stupid magic book you worship.)

Your inability to do so demonstrates that you are also full of it. You issue a challenge which, when met, causes you to run away in fear.

You also failed to respond to your BS about the Council of Nicea, which means you are wrong and you know it.

You also failed to respond to the fact that we already know that there was never an Adam. Because you were wrong and you know it.

That is known as intellectual cowardice.

You also have a problem with my use of the term "allah the shit". Why shouldn't I use that term. I know allah is not real so I can call him/her/it/housecat whatever I like and it matters not a whit.

Perhaps that offends you and your religious sensibilities? Tough. You do not have a right to be not offended. By anything.

I do believe in the right to free speech, which is why I am even responding to you. But clearly, you do not believe in free speech or the free exchange of ideas because you take offense at my use of the term "allah the shit". Free speech should not be allowed in your mad system. You take offence at the term "allah the shit". Why should I give a flying fuck about your offended sensibility about an imaginary sky fairy? Really. I am seriously asking the question. Why should I care about someone else's delusional magic friend?

And why exactly did you lie about "You're not worth my time, frankly speaking," and proceed to respond with pointless text and fucking graphs? Clearly you DID feel a need to respond, but lied about it.

Without doubt, you are one of the most dishonest god-botherers I have ever encountered. (Although Sye-ten would give you a run for your money)

I have had plenty of civilised discussion, both online and in real life, about their faith and my lack of it. You are merely a religious thug. And you need to own that fact.

Tell me What respect should I have for a god, just one among many thousands that I do not believe? What respect should I have for a delusion?
Sure, I can respect the victims of that delusion and maybe try to help them find their way out of it. But religious thugs? Not so much.

So it boils down to this simple question.

Can you demonstrate that your mad god exists? If "Yes" then do so. If "No" then fuck right off.