Is the Qu'ran scientifically proven

You stand on thin ice my friend, and anyone who takes the time to read this debate fully will realize your argument is nonsense. Lets get to the rebuttal. Your Challenge's Hypothesis: "It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using humanmande speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people. " As the hpothesis, this is the logic defending the challenge itself. Without this claim being true your "challenge" is in effect void because the hypothesis that it is based off of has been proven incorrect. For example, If I were to claim that I still believe in Zeus and Poseidon as Greek deities and the ultimate controllers of their respective elements/natural phenomena I would be mocked. This is because the hypothesis behind such a belief (that something as awesome as lightning and the ocean must be the work of the Gods) has been proven false. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"As expected, my opponent dodges the challenge"Indeed, I myself fail the challenge. However, in order for the challenge to prove anything the hypothesis must be valid. Even if you showed that millions of people fail this experiment it doesn't mean that the Qu'ran is inspired by Allah. All I need to show is that a single person has accomplished the goal in all of history other than Mohammad and your entire challenge has been debunked. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"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. "You claim that my logic is weak because it is based off of history books. Well, DDO is not for you, its called sources. Me trusting what history books talk in detail about, what historical documents talk in detail about, what scholars far wiser and learned than me attest to, is not faulty logic. Furthermore, it is not saying "it's true becaseu a book says so" its saying "it's true becasue thousands of books on this subject in particular all agree that it is indeed a historical event. " Your claim to the contrary is laughable, as is your example. Big foot has never been proven, the children's crusade has time and time again with extensive research. One is a tall tale, one is history and if you can't tell the difference I wonder why I'm having this debate. I'm assuming that the above is an attempted refutation of my childrens crusade example, seeing as it is full of holes my example stands and your hypothesis that "It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using humanmande speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people. " is still incorrect, as such your entire challenge stands on faulty ground and proves absolutely nothing beyond the fact that I'm not quite as good at manipulating people as Mohammad and the writers of the Qu'ran. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Regarding Barrack Obama, It did go against their basic "likes" in that hundreds of thousands more people voted for him in the black community than usually do. Regardless of whether they agreed with him or not, these people regularly fail to vote and yet he was able to make them go against their "likes" (or ordinary way of life) and actually vote. My opponent made two points. . . however really only the second stated anthing new. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"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. "Flawed evidence? I think not, seeing as wikipedia is an accepted source on DDO and that is what I used. Actually, I will point out that my opponent has put this statement in quotes from the beginning and never provided a source:"It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people. It is even humanly impossible to do so just to conquer the street you live on. " That being said, his entire challenge proves nothing scientifically because the hypothesis itself is untrue.