Is the Qu'ran scientifically proven

Finally my opponent has addressed my examples and at least made an attempt at moving the debate along.The fact that I cannot beat the "impossible challenge" is only important if said challenge were to scientifically prove anything. So, my job is as follows: prove the challenge is nonsense and proves nothing. If I accomplish said goal there is no point in moving foward with the debate.Furthermore, you draw a flawed conclusion from my failure. Would you claim that a single person represents teh entirety of the human race? I would assume not, but if so I guess this point is moot. By viewing a single entity in the vastness of the human race one cannot draw a conclusion regarding the whole. However, this is exactly what you do, you say: "Again, the challenge is 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 the experiment result is : you, yourself, cannotthe conclusion is : human kind cannotalong this same logic,A paralyzed man cannot walktherefore human kind cannot walkanother example. . .A scientist looks at the characteristics of a single electronThen draws conclusions regarding the chemical properties of goldor maybe this is better . . .A person has a malfunctioning cellthe doctor decides that all cells in that person must be malfunctioning.lastly. . . (drumroll please)eMe, myself, can swim the 50 freestyle in 23 seconds (or so I hear, I have to rely on heresay from a score board and touch sensitive pads for my time)therefore, human kind can only swim the 50 freestyle in 23 seconds without divine help.the conclusion should state "it is personally impossible for you to . . ."DefenseRegarding the election of president Obama,you state Obama "does not have any followers." I would beg the differ based on the definition of follower. You put no qualifications on what qualifies someone as a follower or not, Since this is the case, a voter = follower. If you are willing to vote for someone it means you have been convinced to "follow" them or make them your leader. Now, my evidence for this is hearsay, but, I believe that Obama is the President of the United States. As president he is the leader of this nation, the figurehead, the commander and chief. Can someone be the leader of a nation without having followers? May I remind the reader that all I need to prove is that Obama has the equivalent of 1 street's worth of voters (or "followers") who went agaisnt their "likes." My opponent claimed that they had to be inspired by things they "did not like." As stated before Obama's election answers this in that what many of his black followers "like/believe" is that voting is a waste of time (as proven by voting records and above cited material of an 8.5% increase in African American voting turnout). His literature/speeches surely did not claim that voting was pointless, and as such went against their likes/beliefs. Here are voting figures: http://elections.nytimes.com.... Notice the "first time voter" was won by Obama by 39 points. In 2004 the democratic nominee only garnered a 7 point victory. In the African American bracket Obama won by 90 points, while in the 2004 election the democratic nominee only garnered a 77 point lead. It follows that Obama was able to convince man first time black voters to follow him who otherwise wouldnt have. Remember, in order to debunk the challence I merely need to show that he got the equivalent of 1 neighborhood. According to the 2010 census (http://en.wikipedia.org...) the city of Nashville Tenessee has aproz. 600,000 people which is less than the corresponding increase in new voters that were also black. I cannot really show any clearer that Obama convinced at least 1 neighborhood of people to go against their normal voting habits ("likes") to support him using human made speech/literature.My opponent claims that Obama didn't "conquer" America. Erradication was not a part of the requirements for the hypothesis/challenge and therefore Obama did indeed conquer America in modern terms. The method of conquering was never brought up beyond the fact that he must inspire followers. Remember, The challenge never required Obama to mimick Mohammad's methods but rather to conquer, the method was left up to the conqueror. Whether it was legal or not is irrelevant to the challenge.I would ask the reader to remember what this "challenge" entails, namely, inpiring followeers, convincing them to do something they usually wouldnt (go against their "likes"), and conquering a nation, again, I have shown that Obama accomplished all these things.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"According to my opponent, the authority of whether something is factual or not is not based on true evidence, but whether DDO says it's o.k."If you do not agree with the rules of debate set forward by the moderator/creator of this site, I would ask why did you agree to debate in the first place. I have cited all my information with valid sources. Your arguments about the validity of my examples are nonsense and yes, they are valid because DDO says so, if you don't like it find another debate website that more agrees to your tastes, or put forward the stipulation in round 1 of the debate as is the format of any proper debate.You say "proof is based off facts" and what I say (with DDO to back me up) is that wikipedia and my other sources are valid suppliers of facts according to the rules of the debate. Nothing more nothing less.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"The same applies for the example of the Children's crusade. This example uterly fails from the start, based on the simple fact that once again, Stephen Cloyes was never the leader of any nation, despite having many followers, nor were they following him because they were inspired by his words that went against their liking."this is the entirety of my opponents rebuttal for my Children's crusade example. However, the challenge states that one must conquer your "neighborhood." There weren't neighborhoods back then as we know them so 30,000 followers will have to do (also the combined land owned by 30,000 people even if it as simply a hovel each would total more than enough land mass to equal that of a neighborhood). Did they go againt their "likes" well, people like to eat right? People desire to survive right? However along the way thousands died of starvation. He "conquered" more than enough people to be equivalent to a single neighborhood and they were willing to follow Stephen based off of a human-made letter until they died which isn't something the "liked", whether he conquered literal land is irrelevant, tyrants do that all the time and they aren't inspired by Allah. He fulfilled all the parts of the challenge and as such serves as historic proof that the challenge is invalid.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A) I have shown again and again that my opponents 2 points1) examples provided are invalid2) sources used are less reliable than eye witness accountsare invalid.B) I have defended my examples showing that there are both modern and historic examples of ordinary human beings successfully accomplishing the challenge. C) I have debunked the challenge itelf by showing that you cannot accurately speculate about the abilities of the whole by looking at a single part clearly this challenge has not only been defeated but also the conclusion drawn from said challenge fails on account of basic logic.