Is the Qu'ran scientifically proven

Once again, my opponent's dodging to answer the qur'an challenge itself once again supports the fact that it scientifically proves that it is the true word of Allah(God). Not only that, but these are the words of my oponent himself saying: "Indeed, I myself fail the challenge". Here, my opponent acknowledges that he himself failed the challenge. So from the mouth of my very opponent, his own words once again supports the fact that the challenge proves that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah, for his own failure supports the fact that inspiring enough followers to conquer a nation using human-made speech literature that goes against the likes of those people is humanly impossible. Therefore, such failure confirms the miracle of Muhammad. Why? The reason is because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation in the same fashion. So if it is humanly impossible to use speech or literature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to follow a person/s and conquer a nation, as supported by my opponent's own failure and admission to do so, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that, then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah. Yet my opponent suggests that despite his failure to answer the challenge, this does not confirm that the Qur'an is from Allah(God), because he has proof that at least one person has answered the challenge. His alleged proof is the election of Barack Obama and other historical figures and events. Yet once again, such logic is flawed. For the challenge itself provides a hands-on eyewitness account that the challenge is impossible, while his referring to history is hearsay. Simply put, hearsay is not more credible than a hands-on eyewitness account. This is simple logic. So it does not matter how many references, scholars, historians, or whomever you bring forward as evidence. Let me make this as simple as possible. I come to you with a basketball and ask whether the ball can bounce on the ground or not. So as evidence that the ball can bounce, you present references of millions of historians, scholars, and even quotes and the inventor of Spalding as evidence that the ball can bounce. I present evidence as well. What is my evidence you ask? Simple. JUST TRY TO BOUNCE THE BALL. This is clearly the more logical proof, as such evidence will provide a hands-on eyewitness account as to whether the ball will bounce. There is no better way to know if the ball will bounce than to bounce it yourself. So you bounce the ball, and lo and behold, the ball does not bounce. Now what my opponent is telling us is that despite the fact that he personally bounced the ball himself and after repeated attempts watched the ball never bounce, that it is more logical to conclude....THAT IT CAN BOUNCE. Why? Because he has references from millions of scholars that say that the ball can bounce. Dear audience, any reasonable person can see the flaw in such logic. It is very clear that the millions of credible scholars can not possibly be credible or right, because the fact that you personally saw the ball not bounce after attempting to make it bounce YOURSELF proves otherwise. In short, my opponent's pleading arguments that history is proof that the challenge is possible utterly fails, as the qur'an challenge provides a hands on-eyewitness account that inspiring enough followers to conquer a nation, or just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literature that goes against what the people want is humanly impossible, because anyone who takes the challenge will fail and not come close to answering it. And since it is clearly humanly impossible to use human-made speech/literature to achieve the act, then that means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation was not the invention of any human/s, but from one who has greater power and authority than humans, and that is Allah. A hands-on eyewitness account is more credible than hearsay, thus debunking my opponent's claims that history and references from alleged scholars proves otherwise, and since my opponent himself admittedly acknowledges that he failed the challenge, then he himself is evidence that the challenge scientifically proves that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(God).