shabbir ally vs peter atkins

thats a debate i went 2 on thursday, think its the first debate i eva been 2 actually! im not usually in2 talks and debates and stuff but they're 2 very renowned speakers and were debating the q "does god exist?" i was quite disappointed actually, i didn't find it satisfying and peter atkins obvious pride was 2 much, he didnt seem 2 hav studied islam at all, not 2 any gr8 depth neways and he was 2 dismissiv, wen it came 2 the crunch, all he sed was "science hasn't yet found an answer" which was a disappointin response and i didnt like the way he kept avoidin his task like tht with things like "why should i prove ther isnt a god, u not proving there is one is proof enough" that's jus twistin it around and reflectin the light from yorself, i expected better of him, a supposedly very strong academic and i also thort shabbir ally shud have posed the q based on the miracles of the quraan, the more obvious miracles.

the reason i went 2 the debate was 2 hear the rsponse of such a strong athiest, who's soo "practical" and beleevs miracles hav neva happend 2 answer this about the quraan...

"the quraan talks about modern discoveries such as the fact that it is impossible for 2 people even identicle twins to have the same fingerprints (discoverd only last century), about the moon, earth and sun being in orbit, about oceanic density- the 2 seas that meet but never mix, about the precise development of a featus in the mothers womb, and many more scientific facts like this (cloud and rain, etc). how could an illiterate man living 1400 years ago in the middle of the arabian desert possibly know all this if it wasn't a devine revelation from the almighty?"

i really wanted 2 hear peter atkins response 2 that and was disappointed that he wasn't confronted with that q and with his answer's to some of the q like when a boy from the floor askd him about blood clotting, from wot i cud hear he askd, how cud it be that blood clotting in humans occurs impossibly fast because there's soo many chemicals in the body, how can they be constantly in balance when clotting is required?" peter atkins response was that if all the componants needed for the clotting's are already present...yes but sooo many chemicals, how can they be in constant balanced, "released" inthe right amount at the right time.... because of human nature, nature and evolution ensures that it's done correctly. to me that sounded like he replaced god with the word nature nature. to me this promptd the q, so what drives evolution? is it a random accident? if the "1st draft" is bad and the 2nd draft is an improvement is it jus randomly better? what's the intelligence that drives nature, it can't be chance that the future versions are just randomly better. it was disappointing that peter atkins wasn't confronted with such things.