Is the Qu'ran scientifically proven

As expected, my opponent dodges the challenge, thus confirming his denial to the fact that the qur'an challenge proves that it is the true word of Allah. For the challenge clearly states for YOU YOURSELF to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, or even just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literatue that goes against the wants of a mass of people, as proof that such an act is humanly possible. So has my opponent conquered a nation? NO. Has he conquered the street he lives on? NO. Thus my opponent has done absolutely nothing in answering the challenge and has been dodging it from the beginning. Again, my opponent's own ducking and dodging to attempt the challenge once again confirms his denial to the fact that the qur'an is the true word of Allah and supports the evidence that the challenge is scientifically valid. Instead, my opponent tries to justify his dodging to answer the challenge himself by stating that history is full of examples of people answering the challenge, thus proving that the challenge is invalid. Yet such logic is clearly flawed. For if asked of what prof my opponent has that the alleged history is true, his logic boils down to "because a book says so". Such logic is clearly weak, for saying so is not proof that it is so. According to my opponent's logic, Big Foot exists. Why? Because a book says so. Any reasonable person can see the flaw in such logic, thus proving nothing. Furthermore, such logic is hearsay, while 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 evidence based on "it's true because a book says so". Thus the challenge that scientifically proves that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah is still valid. Also, in an attempt to prove that the challenge has been answered, my opponent argues that the election of Barack Obama as president is proof that it is humanly possible to inspire enough followes to conquer a nation using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes of those people. Again, this example falls apart in several ways. 1. A component of the challenge is to use speech/literature that goes against the likes of the people and that such speech would be the reason why the person receives followers. Yet such was clearly not the case in the election of Obama, as people voted for Obama because they AGREED with what he said and liked it, not that they disliked it. 2. Obama does not have any followers that he inspired to conquer a nation for him to be President. Obama has no followers. He was able to be President based on the election process, a process that came into being not because of Obama, but from the consensus and agreement of the public and citizens. Therefore, the public and citizens are not followers of Obama since it was they themselves who's authority allowed Obama to be President. No one is a follower of Obama, but rather a follower of laws that they themselves agreed to and agreed to be governed by and enforced by elected individuals. In short, my opponent has dodged the challenge to do it himself and tried to justify his dodging with flawed evidence. Yet as demonstrated, the evidence does not hold, thus the challenge that proves scientifically that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah is still valid.