TED Conversations

S. Ahmadi

TEDCRED 20+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Extinction of human being in past history of earth and Evolution theory

according to Koran and Hadith the current generation of human has history of maximum 7000 years . some of them are famous and are mentioned in Koran like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad (peace on them) and the oldest human of current generation is Adam mentioned living near 6500 to max. 7000 years ago and detailed history of his life by near 1000 years old at death is said.

Imam Sadiq (peace ion him) said that all current humans are children of Adam and Eve and before current generation 7 generation of humans lived on earth and all extincted before Adam and Eve.

1- does Evolution theory consider any possible extinction of human during history of earth?
if no why?

2- if human had any Extinction during history of earth then can this solve the conflict of Evolution theory and believing God?

3- why some Evolution scientists have problem with God?

4- is it possible in future (for example 500 years later) that scientists understand that Evolution theory has no conflict with believing God?

5- is it possible they understand that God selected the Evolution among other possible ways of creation for creating spices?

6- can Extinction be considered as a hypothesis in the Evolution theory?

(Imam Sadiq was teacher of many big scientists of world and with his father established the first large university of history and thousands of scientists from all over the world came to his classes and had great academic contributions.

the number if scientists in his classes was so much that some people repeated his speech loud in distances to all hear.
Imam Sadiq learned 1000 page of chemistry on buckskin to Geber and Geber made them 500 book about Chemistry that one of them is method purifying Gold.
http://goo.gl/g96dg

He was a polymath: an astronomer, alchemist, Imam, Islamic scholar, Islamic theologian, writer, philosopher, physician, physicist and scientist. He was also the teacher of the famous chemist Geber
http://goo.gl/P0JMq
http://goo.gl/duAJg)

0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    May 10 2011: 1) It considers the possibility of humans separating into different variations of humans that would be unable to interbreed. In fact, considering there are different races that are starting to merge now with globalization, I think it's reasonable that if this remained so for a million more years or so, Nigerians (for example) would've indeed turned into a separate species.

    2) Again, we're not talking about "extinction of human", we're talking about "splitting of human into different variations".

    3) They don't have a problem with mythical beings... they have a problem with organized religion and faith. They have a problem with an unproven concept like "God did it" taking precedence over scientifically proven concepts like evolution.

    4) The generic concept of God is not in conflict with evolution. The one described in the Bible or Quran is in conflict though. There are theists (Christians and Muslims alike) who ignore the unproven claims when there's a scientifically proven explanation, and only have faith in the remaining stuff. They take their holy book as a "base" for the truth about the universe and their existence, rather than the full truth itself. Personally, I refer to this kind of theists as "not-really Christians" and "not-really Muslims", because they claim to be religious, while not being religious... like "WTF?". Still, if everyone was THAT kind of theist, scientists would still think religion is harmless.

    5) Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, but rather, of its diversity once it started. If God is said to have created all life on Earth, that's in conflict with evolution. If God was said to have "started" life which later formed into us and all other living things, that would've been consistent with evolution.

    6) I'm not sure I get that one... extinction is already a phenomenon... it means the death of a species. Evolution is just about that death potentially being in favor of two or more variations of that species.
    • May 11 2011: Dear Vasil,
      "They have a problem with an unproven concept like "God did it" taking precedence over scientifically proven concepts like evolution."
      so who did it? no one? or Evolution?

      I think evolution has no conflict with God.

      are you sure evolution is scientifically proven concepts? why?

      "The one described in the Bible or Quran is in conflict though. "
      what is conflict of God describes in God?


      "who ignore the unproven claims when there's a scientifically proven explanation"
      are you sure claims of Quran are not proved? can say some example?

      "They take their holy book as a "base" for the truth"
      what if the book is proved to be truth before?

      "if everyone was THAT kind of theist, scientists would still think religion is harmless."
      I think scientists and theists could not still have a real talk and both side have problems.

      theists do not understand evolution well and consider atheists ignorant and atheists do not understand real God and consider theists ignorant and this cause real peaceful talk happen never and each side consider other side as enemy.

      "Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life"
      oh! I was thinking it is:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

      "If God was said to have "started" life... "
      this is your idea or evolution scientists?
      also after start the system need observe and control. for example consider electrons turning around nuclear of atom one moment go out of their direction. what will happen? does not they need control to drive their path carefully? can an electron randomly drive so exact and not sleep after Billion years driving?

      "I'm not sure I get that one"
      what about humans?
      • thumb
        May 11 2011: "so who did it? no one? or Evolution?"
        Define "it".

        Start of the first life? - Unknown by science. If you think it's God, that's fine. I personally think it's unlikely, but there isn't a proven theory on that, so we can agree to disagree.

        Origin of today's diverse life? - From the first life, by the process of evolution via natural selection. THAT is the part that's in conflict with science. The Bible and Quran alike merge the creation of life with the creation of all life - that God did all of it at once. Evolution says today's life was not created, and doesn't say anything on the first life, other than the fact that there was a single (or a small bunch of) life from which the rest originated.

        "I think evolution has no conflict with God."
        You're right. It doesn't. It has a conflict with the Bible and Quran instead, not with God. If God exists, evolution and the Big Bang are evidence that the Bible and Quran are not (exactly?) his word... or that they've been altered by humans over history to an unknown extent. Organized religions fear evolution and the Big Bang exactly because if those parts of their holy books are wrong, there is no guarantee on what else might be wrong.

        "what is conflict of God describes in God?"
        Who the what now?

        "are you sure claims of Quran are not proved? can say some example?"
        The default state of a critical mind is disbelief. Everything is unproven by default. So the question is what claims of the Quran ARE proven (rather than just expressed by the Quran itself). Can you present examples of miraculous stories that are evidenced by earlier historical artifacts or something of the sort (later ones don't really count, because they were likely inspired by the Quran)?

        "what if the book is proved to be truth before?"
        They'd take the bits that are proved to be truth as truth, and keep an open mind to the rest. Since spiritual claims typically are untestable by definition, such theists rarely take anything as truth.
        • May 12 2011: Dear Vasil,
          "Define "it"."
          creation and existence of material.

          "but there isn't a proven theory on that"
          whats your idea about this?

          so you believe anything only by a theory? so what is application of your wisdom? maybe such theory come 500 years later when you are in Hell with no opportunity to believe God.

          Origin means origin of first life.

          "It has a conflict with the Bible and Quran instead"
          I do not know bible perfect but what is conflict of evolution and Quran?

          "evolution and the Big Bang are evidence that the Bible and Quran are not (exactly?) his word"
          first they are two theory, not proven fact. also in Koran there is many verses about creation and there are some verses having very much similarity to big bang and evolution. but not in the name of big bang and evolution.
          please read:
          http://www.quranmiracles.com/

          "Organized religions fear evolution and the Big Bang "
          what is Organized religions? does it include Islam? if yes evidence?

          "Who the what now?"
          sorry, what is conflict of science and God described in Quran?

          "The default state of a critical mind is disbelief."
          yes but rational mind is better:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
          critical mind will pay the expensive cost of mistake and errors of mind.

          "Everything is unproven by default"
          this is very dangerous mind. assuming and research is no problem. but building belief and life on it is very dangerous mind because we do not know much and know little.
          its like a mother say child do not drink that glass. and child say it is unproven by default.

          "Can you present examples of miraculous stories that are evidenced by earlier historical artifacts or something of the sort "
          please read carefully and say your comment:
          http://www.quranmiracles.com/
          these some scientific evidences. also there are many other non-scientific.

          "They'd take the bits that are proved to be truth as truth, and keep an open mind to the rest."
          what if all Koran is proved to be truth?
      • thumb
        May 12 2011: "creation and existence of material."
        That's not evolution. That's the Big Bang, and again, assuming material was "created" is an unsafe assumption (because there's no evidence that it was created by anyone or anything).

        "whats your idea about this?"
        Currently, I believe the first life happened via "emergence"
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

        But if there is a proven scientific theory on that, I'll believe that theory instead. And I'll switch again if a third idea is better proven. I don't resist change when it leads closer to the truth.

        "so what is application of your wisdom?"
        What's the application of YOUR wisdom on that question? With or without knowing the truth on that, I'm not sure how an acknowledgment about reality is to be applied. Asserting that it should is like asserting that understanding evolution leads to become Hitler... it's simply false.

        "Origin means origin of first life."
        Yeah, about that... Darwin's book is "Origin of Species", not "Origin of Life".

        "its like a mother say child do not drink that glass. and child say it is unproven by default."
        A critical minded child would think that, but won't say that, but would instead try to find the truth going like:
        -Kid: Why?
        -Mom: Because if you do, you'll die.
        -K: How do you know I'd die?
        -M: Because people are known to die from [poison], and this glass contains [poison].
        -K: How do you know the glass contains [poison]?
        -M: I placed it there.

        Now, at that point, I'd ask "Why?", but we're going into a different scenario then... either way, point it is that even this can be evidenced to a good enough degree. The child relies on the assumption that whatever the mother presents as evidence is true until proven otherwise, which is a required assumption when the kid can't research himself.

        Also, in both cases, there's enough time for research. A rational mind is only required for imminent threats like "Look out, a car!". At that point, even I'd immediately run, because there's no time to react.
        • May 18 2011: "That's not evolution. "
          Ok, please consider first spices on earth.(start of life)

          "assuming material was "created" is an unsafe assumption"
          there is evidence both rational and scientific. earth/universe/material has age and history of max. 14.5 Billion years and rationally in infinite time for history of material is impossible (startless)
          so there is a start for existence of material. we call it creation. what you call it? BB? or other?

          "if there is a proven scientific theory"
          science how can see what happened at 14.5 Billions years ago. science only say how much is age of universe/earth/life. your wisdom say the rest.

          "emergence" happens in required conditions (wind/air/nature/water/cold/...) as result of laws of nature and it is only changing shape of material. when you speak about start of material there was no nature and required conditions for "emergence". so "emergence" is not workable for start of existence of life and material.


          "What's the application of YOUR wisdom"
          my wisdom says: there is a start for life/earth/universe/material and nothing can not be thing with no cause so there is a cause for existence. also I see a high level of harmony/precision/order/design/power/science/... in nature so that cause should be powerful/designer/scientist,... we call such cause God and try communicating it to know why created us and if expect anything from us or not?

          "but we're going into a different scenario"
          why? is other scenario better than God? so many evidence for God (Bible/Koran/prophets/wisdom/...). also other scenario is like God finally.
          what is problem of God? why not accept?

          "understanding evolution leads to become Hitler."
          science and God are separate and no conflict. science supports God and God supports science. why you assume only one should be taken? evolution is a tool for God for creation. like a saw in hand of a man. some only see saw.
        • May 18 2011: "Darwin's book is "Origin of Species""
          as I know Darwin was a believer and was holding Bible on his chest at death.
          origin of life or Species no much difference. what is origin and cause of them?

          About child scenatio this is not child. It is adult. If a child is so wise then mothers have no problem.
          Asking is the key of knowledge. This child asks. But humans do not ask about God and only deny it without knowing God.

          Now, at that point, I'd ask "Why?"
          Before this why, do you accept soul? If yes, then you accept body dies and soul does not and as we happened from soul (at womb of mother from foods mother eat) so its possible we alive again after death:
          http://www.ted.com/conversations/815/the_end_of_the_world.html
          http://www.ted.com/conversations/2109/what_is_a_soul.html
          and then if you do not care about God, death immediately hunts you and you will have many loss and danger after death with no end.

          "kid can't research himself."
          All can research and best point for start of research today is Quran.

          "there's enough time for research"
          Maybe enough for science but not for you. Every one is responsible for life of himself. When guard of Hell carry you to fire can any of these scientists do any little help for you? They will be busy for problems of themselves.
          Death is waiting to hunt you.
          ***Today is doing and not result, tomorrow is result and not doing.***
          ***What is Coming is Near***

          "because there's no time to react."
          Also about death is no time to react. Life is only two days. Do you remember when you was baby? Death comes with no news when you are drawn in work of enjoys of world. Please see and take lessons from who are old and go to cemetery much times.
          Death is coming and what is coming is near.
      • thumb
        May 12 2011: "I do not know bible perfect but what is conflict of evolution and Quran?"
        Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Quran say that God created the world, and then created all life on it, including the first people?

        If it does, that's the part that's in conflict... According to evolution, humans have common (now extinct) ancestors with some of today's animals (apes), with the common ancestors themselves being common ancestors with other with other species of today, and so on and so on, down to the first life.

        "what is Organized religions? does it include Islam? if yes evidence?"
        "organized religion" in general means any religion that has some form deities, dogma and followers of the dogma. Includes Abraham religions (Christianity in all forms, Judaism and Islam) as well as Hinduism and similar. I was specifically referring to Abraham religions in the above sentence.

        Evidence of them fearing? Some states of the United States have decided to "teach the controversy", i.e. force teachers to present evolution as being an equally possible theory as creationism. In the case of Islam, the sheer lack of decent education in many middle east countries (Afghanistan and Pakistan in particular) is evidence enough. If you've been able to get good education, this can only mean that your branch of Islam is comfortable taking the Quran as a "lifestyle law" as opposed to "book about everything", same way as the Eastern Orthodox Church that rules my country is comfortable taking the Bible as a "the moral guidebook" and nothing more.

        "please read carefully and say your comment:"
        I can only point to this counter argument:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LyrrBd08M8

        "what if all Koran is proved to be truth?"
        That will be the day when the word "human" will be replaced by the word "Muslim" because that's what everyone will be. That's also the day when "Islam" is no longer going to be "religion", since it isn't going to require any faith.
        • May 18 2011: "but doesn't the Quran say that God created the world, and then created all life on it, including the first people?"
          Correct. But I think you do not the meaning of "creation" word In Quran correct. If you research on word creation in Quran and how this word is used for describing different facts then you understand the correct meaning of "creation"
          This world is used near 218 times in Quran:
          http://tanzil.net/#search/root/%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%82
          Reading them carefully we understand creation is gradual and step by step.
          For example:
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/22:5
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/16:4
          God says I created human from a drop of liquid in womb of mother.
          So creation is gradual and step by step. And Evolution say the same concept. So what is conflict?
          also God describes creation process of skys and earth (universe) in at least 7 verse and said I created them in 8 step:
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/7:54
          http://tanzil.net/#search/quran/%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%87%20%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%85
          Big Bang say things same as these.

          So I do not know what is the conflict?
          also about first people you are correct. But Adam is not first human. He is first human from current generation of humans.

          "According to evolution, humans have common (now extinct) ancestors with some of today's animals (apes)"
          Indeed science is wrong about this one. Please study about Evolution. It says natural selection makes differences in spices during years (correct) then science concludes:
          Then So: if we go back to millions years ago all species have common ancestors (false)
          This is not rational. It is only one guess (hypothesis)

          You leave so many evidence (Bible, Quran, rational, history,…) and stick to a guess?!

          Yes this is conflict. Then what? God is wrong or science is wrong?
          History of science is full of mistakes.
          Guess is not important. Proved science is important.
        • May 18 2011: about that youtube, sorry, I could not see it. can you say its claim in one sentence?
          I think it is only about BB. in http://www.quranmiracles.com/ there are many more miracles shown. what about other?

          "That will be the day when the word "human" will be replaced by the word "Muslim" "
          what is the relation of this and miracles of Quran?

          you are comparing Islam with your Image of religion. this is dangerous.

          "since it isn't going to require any faith."
          please explain this.
      • thumb
        May 26 2011: "Asking is the key of knowledge. This child asks. But humans do not ask about God and only deny it without knowing God."
        Apparently, I've always held the key of knowledge then... I asked about everything *including* God, and rejected the God I was presented with after seeing that the claims about him (that I was supposed to take with "faith" in order to "know" him) don't match up with what I knew for a fact (facts which I knew because I asked). And I've said before in other topics that it took the Big Bang to convince me that God in general is an unnecessary assumption, and Richard Dawkins' TEDTalk to make me take the label "Atheist" (which I already was by that time).

        "my wisdom says:..."
        That's your attempt at logic at work in trying to fill the gaps in your knowledge. But here's the thing... I'm comfortable saying "I don't know", and it seems it all falls back to this. While you have a wild card explanation for anything you don't understand - God - I'm comfortable not knowing, as long as there's any plausible explanation for each unexplainable thing. I'm comfortable saying I don't know what exactly happens in my brain when I type this, just as long as I know it's my brain that's causing it somehow. I don't need the notion of a "soul" being there.

        "science only say how much is age of universe/earth/life. your wisdom say the rest."
        Wrong. My *speculations* say the rest. My speculations are not wisdom (as in "knowledge") if not based on evidence.

        "
        "but we're going into a different scenario"
        why? is other scenario better than God?
        "
        You're missing the point... I meant that the original scenario you posed was about the child not drinking from the glass, and how allegedly it was better that the child did not thought critically at that point. At the point I stopped with that remark, the hypothetical child would already be convinced by use of critical thinking not to drink from the glass, so anything we can say from that point on is not related to your point.
        • May 31 2011: "and rejected the God I was presented with after seeing that the claims about him (that I was supposed to take with "faith" in order to "know" him)"
          real God never says shut down wisdom and follow blind.
          Indeed what you have known has not been God.
          please reconsider knowing God.

          "the Big Bang to convince me that God in general is an unnecessary assumption,"
          if BB have no cause yes. but is it possible BB have no cause?
          also what about laws of physics?
          BB without laws of physics is only chaos like an explosive bomb.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Underlying_assumptions
          http://www.ted.com/conversations/2142/why_our_universe_has_laws_of_p.html

          "to make me take the label "Atheist""
          good, this show you are not a blind follower and you are a real seeker.

          ***Seeker is Finder***
          (real seek)

          "That's your attempt at logic at work in trying to fill the gaps in your knowledge. But here's the thing... I'm comfortable saying "I don't know","
          saying "I don't know" is trying to fill the gaps in your knowledge and leaving seeking.
          usually people are lazy in seeking and want to have short time comfort.

          better to seek complete and ensure there is no God or there is God.
          "I don't know" is good for temporary but saying "I don't know" until end of life is very risky.

          "doubt is a good bridge, but is not a good settlement"
          Imam Ali (peace on him)

          "as long as there's any plausible explanation"
          plausible explanation (truth) does not come to you. you should seek and go to it.
          but food comes to you any way. did you slept hungry any night?
          God guaranteed the food come to you. but not guaranteed the truth come to you and leaved truth you yo go to it.

          "I don't need the notion of a "soul" being there."
          there is no choice for you about soul and death. you have free will but not absolute. you are forced to die.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

          "speculations"
          what is benefit of speculations?
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/6:116
          do you have any evidence for after life?
        • May 31 2011: the scenario of child is a example of scenario of God. sick is Hell. they are the same.
          you are the child. mother is religion and and poison is disobeying God.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
      • thumb
        May 26 2011: 'so "emergence" is not workable for start of existence of life and material.'
        Only if you assume life started along with matter, which is clearly a false premise. There was and still is matter (how exactly is a separate issue), and by "emergence" in that case I mean this matter gradually forming into the first life form out of atoms, similarly to how the first quarks formed the first atoms (i.e. out of what would appear as "chaos" of quarks), but on a larger and longer scale.

        "science and God are separate and no conflict. science supports God and God supports science. why you assume only one should be taken? evolution is a tool for God for creation. like a saw in hand of a man. some only see saw."
        God != Allah != Yahweh

        Science doesn't "support" God (God supporting science may be true if he exists), and there's definitely a dichotomy in terms of "Bible/Quran" vs. science. Both Gods described by Abraham religions' holy books are incompatible with science. They make claims that are simply false based on the evidence. It is because of this that we can conclude that Allah/Yahweh doesn't exist *as described*. According to the claims, he must know better. "God" in general may exist, but if he does, he's not exactly as described in either of those books.

        "about that youtube, sorry, I could not see it. can you say its claim in one sentence?"
        Huh? How come? Your ISP is blocking YouTube traffic or something? Hmm... since "Draw Muhammad Day" happened recently, I can't say I'm surprised really.

        Anyway... the point is that all scientific "miracles" were only interpreted out of ambiguous verses after science made the discovery. If the Quran is to prove its scientific worth, it needs to make a scientific prediction for a currently unknown phenomenon. If it turns out the Quran was correct, you'd have made your point. If one takes this risk though, they must also admit the Quran is wrong (or on the very least "scientifically useless") should the test fail.
        • May 31 2011: "but on a larger and longer scale."
          yes, but all that paragraph depends on laws of physics.
          although I disagree life is made only from material.(soul is needed too. for example Intention is not found in material)

          "God != Allah != Yahweh"
          yes. but today Image of 3 are not the same.
          actually they are 3 name for one thing. but people have different Image of each.

          "Science doesn't "support""
          yes better to I say science supports knowing God. (for example by knowing laws of physics we know there is a enforcer for laws in universe)

          "Both Gods described by Abraham religions' holy books are incompatible with science."
          I disagree about Allah. can you show evidence? or maybe you have misunderstanding about Allah.

          *as described*
          where?

          "he's not exactly as described in either of those books."
          can you show me at least one evidence? (about Allah)

          I have access to youtube but problem in downloading. my monthly traffic is limited. if I select unlimited I should pay much.

          "ambiguous verses after science made the discovery."
          yes, but this still show the miracle. because at 1400 years ago there was no paper and no science, no lab, few people could write their own name,... so how they discovered?

          "it needs to make a scientific prediction for a currently unknown phenomenon."
          yes it makes many. but problems is that no one care to them before science validate it.
          for example you go to Stanford and say I know what is out of universe. what they say? if you say its based on a religious book they laughter to you. like when Galileo Galilei said to church.

          "scientifically useless"
          I disagree. many scientific uses has made from Koran.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Sina
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jābir_ibn_Hayyān
          and many many more example.

          you may do not know. but many many products you use today has root in Koran.
          for example search how alcohol was discovered?
          or first surgery tools
          of first hospital.
          gold purifying
          many medicine facts
          countless examples.
      • thumb
        May 26 2011: "
        "since it isn't going to require any faith."
        please explain this.
        "
        By definition, "faith" is a belief in something without evidence for it (and I'd add "or in spite of evidence against it").

        Matching all of the Quran with reality is having evidence for it. You have evidence => there is no "faith" involved (because the "belief" is now based on evidence) => Since every religion requires "faith" (belief in certain claims without evidence for them), the Quran will no longer be a religious book, but a collection of scientific theories written in ancient times => Islam is no longer going to be a "religion", since it's based on proven theories.

        Further, if all people accept the evidence and explanation, then all people would be "Muslim". OK, so seeing that there are humans that believe in creationism, perhaps I went a little too far by saying "Human = Muslim", but "Scientists/Atheists/Agnostics/Deists/Not-really-theists = Muslims" is probably a more realistic of what I had in mind would happen if the claims of the Quran became proven scientific theories.
        • May 31 2011: "By definition, "faith" is a belief in something without evidence for it"
          yes so I consider many scientists faith holder.
          for example:
          "BB is creator of world"
          evidence? (that BB had no other cause)

          "You have evidence =>"
          disagree.
          there is many evidence for validity of Koran that Koran is not from human and is from God.

          "collection of scientific theories written in ancient times"
          you do not know theories of ancient time or you do not know Koran.
          there are many contradiction between them.

          for example at 1400 years ago people believed earth is flat like a plate and said there is nothing under earth. or stars are girls of God or buried their girl babies under soil while she was alive or many many other silly (today) theories (beliefs).
          why Koran has contamination with them?
          such contradictions caused many wars between Muhammad (peace on him) and Arab people of that time.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad

          "if all people accept the evidence and explanation"
          yes, but IF. but all the history shows this IF not happened because nature of human. (free will).

          I did not understand the final part. may be we have different Image of religion and creation from two opposite side of earth.
          I do not know whats your Image of religion and you do not know whats my Image of religion.
      • thumb
        Jun 5 2011: 'for example:
        "BB is creator of world"
        evidence? (that BB had no other cause)'
        First and most important... again... no scientist says that the Big Bang is the "creator" of our world. It is claimed to be the first EVENT in our universe. It is claimed that all matter, and therefore all of space, was limited to a single extremely dense point, and space and time itself started from that point on.

        There is no evidence that this is indeed the very first event, but there is evidence for the Big Bang and everything following it. Not having evidence for it being the first event doesn't automatically make God the cause of the Big Bang though. There are a myriad of other hypothesis, and unlike God, they could potentially be proven true or false.

        There is the hypothesis that the universe is in a constant cycle of explosion and implosion, and that after all matter becomes scattered enough, it would start imploding again for another Big Bang.

        There's also the hypothesis that matter always existed, and it's just time that started at the Big Bang, hence the Big Bang would be the first event.

        There's also the possibility that our universe is a part of a multi-verse, and the Big Bang was caused by one of these other universes that may operate on some of the above principles.

        So... God MAY exist and be the cause of the Big Bang, but we don't have evidence to suggest that he is. Even if he was, this makes him only a deist God, not a theistic one.

        On the part about the Koran being a scientific book, you're actually agreeing with me... it indeed contains things that are blatantly false, but which people believed at the time it was written, hence the Koran is not the word of God.

        "why Koran has contamination with them?"
        Why indeed... What is more likely? That the Koran is not the word of God, but was instead man made, or that God is very bad at communicating his message and is inherently imperfect, fallible and can't do everything? Take your pick...
        • Jun 8 2011: Dear Vasil,
          I agree you.
          BB had other causes. the cause of BB is not called God.
          first please say is infinite chain of causes possible?
          philosophy says this is impossible and finally there is a final cause.
          perhaps there has been thousands of causes before BB.
          if infinite chain of causes is impossible then a final cause exist.
          it is God.

          "There's also the hypothesis that matter always existed"
          this is impossible by philosophically and has conflict by concept of time.

          perhaps science has such hypothesis but philosophy not accept it. it has conflict with attributes of material and time.
          can you show that hypotheses?

          "There's also the possibility that our universe is a part of a multi-verse, and the Big Bang was caused by one of these other universes that may operate on some of the above principles."
          no problem. again this question:
          is unlimited chain of causes possible rationally?

          "So... God MAY exist and be the cause of the Big Bang, but we don't have evidence to suggest that he is. Even if he was, this makes him only a deist God, not a theistic one."
          God is not necessarily cause of BB. God is the final cause in the chain of causes.

          "it indeed contains things that are blatantly false"
          I disagree Koran has has even one false word. if you prove me one false in Koran I fundamentally will change my opinion about Koran.

          "but which people believed at the time it was written"
          Koran has tons of contradicts with usual beliefs of people of that time. so why people of that time believed to Koran? please note in today Koran has much less contradicts with science and beliefs of people (one example of thousands is that at that time the belief of scientific community in all the world including Arabia was that earth is flat and tons of other beliefs). today is much easier to believe Koran than 1400 years ago.
          why people of that time believed Koran and prophet?
          did prophet Muhammad existed 1400 years ago?
        • Jun 8 2011: ""why Koran has contamination with them?""
          sorry, it was contradiction. not contamination. typo.

          please not why God created human and world?

          the goal of creation is not to God communicate human.
          actually God created human and gave him free will and wisdom (what did not give to any animal nor angels) and leaved human in earth to human find God with his wisdom. and all prophets and holy books (today only Koran is available originally) like a cheat in a game. this is fro merciful of God.
          if the goal of God was communication then make sure God selected best possible way of communication.
          God intentionally wanted to world be a mix of lie and truth and mix of good and evil and with war and peace and human in such condition find the God.
          the goal is not communication.
          if direct prefect communication between human and God then human knew power of God perfect and obeyed God 100% and then human became animal and world was not world and human was not human.
  • thumb
    Jun 1 2011: If extinction did occur we wouldn't be here...
    • Jun 3 2011: yes but with assuming no creation of Adam and Eve happened after extinction.
      can you prove this assumption?
      • thumb
        Jun 3 2011: I personally can't, but I'm pretty sure a biologist/geneticist could. Confined to only 7,000 years, I believe this is not enough time to explain the genetic diversity we have today. Most theologists who deny macro-evolution do support micro evolution and genetic mutation.
        • Jun 4 2011: before Adam and Eve (near 7000 years ago) other generations of human existed and extincted.
      • thumb
        Jun 5 2011: We would still be confined to the "genetic gene pool" of Adam/Eve and their immediate descendants. Also, "extinction" is a poor choice in words. If two humans remained capable of reproducing, as you are implying, then extinction did not occur.
        • Jun 9 2011: Dear Andrew Buchmann,
          as Abraham religions say the Adam and Eve were created by God and sent to earth. and they were not from generation of humans before them.
  • thumb
    Jun 1 2011: Don't get me wrong,i just did'nt want to read all the posts.

    I don't know the quran i follow the christian faith,but can i ask a question that might give insight from a non-scientific view?now the question is from the view of the book of genisis.

    How long did adam stay in the garden?

    Science can't prove the existence of the one god because theres no experiment devised that can prove he exists,science is a tool we use to help us understand the environment we exist in,thats all it is,a tool,if it can't find any physical evidence then it will state that it found no physical evidence but neither can it prove he does'nt exist.

    One should never try to unite the two.

    Please don't hit me with the ape gene,it does'nt rule out manipulation or the big bang,just because genisis has the "let there be light"Exspansion dose'nt mean bang.i prefer the bubble through view.
    • Jun 3 2011: "How long did adam stay in the garden?"
      as I know he was there for 40 years but not still alive. only a dead body.
      then God made him alive by the soul of God.
      then God said him live in this garden but not eat from that tree. but he eat and then God said him:
      http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/2:36

      "Science can't prove the existence of the one god because theres no experiment devised that can prove he exists"
      I disagree. science has many bitter experiences from church and does not want to back to church and science thinks God=church so does not want to research on God.
      if they want they can prove quick.
      problem is wanting, not ability.
      also what is application of wisdom?
      also can this prove God:?
      http://www.ted.com/conversations/2142/why_our_universe_has_laws_of_p.html

      I do not know too much about Bible.
      I know Koran.
  • May 29 2011: 3- why some Evolution scientists have problem with God?

    the religion is a simple human creation, a little sociology (the human ones are influenced by their social group), of anthropology (there exists an astronomical number of cultures through the human history, one could also add the cultures of the other animals), psychology (our data processing is determined, freedom is an illusion), we are not all the time rational…
    all in all, for that which wants to reason, the assumption of the gods is explained easily. all this remains knowledge and for that which wants to believe, it will seek to modify this knowledge so that it agrees with its beliefs.
    It's very difficult, for a believer, to think that what it knows is not worth anything, it thus will still seek still and the least thing being able to go in its direction.and precisely, science seeks but does not seek to prove something. The opposite would make that each one would find in its beliefs the explanation of the world: everyone would have reason, buddhist, shintoist, hindouist, christian, etc ......... it's poor
  • thumb
    May 29 2011: S.R. Ahmadi, I look forward to replying to you at another moment when I have much more time available to do so. Until then... Steve
    • May 31 2011: OK,
      thanks
      waiting for visiting your comments.
  • thumb
    May 18 2011: Age of oldest fossil of Homo Sapiens is 195,000 years. Check the link please.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223122209.htm

    Exitinction is not a hypothesis it's a proven fact. Many species got extinct due to different reasons. Fossils are proof of that (check the British Museum of Natural History , many fossils are there).

    Still many species are on the verge extinction and to prevent that humankind is adapted different protective measure. Extinction happens either if species is unable to adapt with it's surrounding environment or ruthless destruction of their habitat by human being or sudden natural calamities.
    • May 18 2011: finding a fossil does not show extinction happened for human. it only show a human lived 195,000 years ago.
      • thumb
        May 18 2011: Please read again my earlier post, I didn't say Human being got extinct 195.00 years !!! Ha ha Who are we then?

        You told human existance is only 7000 years so I told you fossil proves human being existed even 195,000 years ago.
      • thumb
        May 18 2011: "according to Koran and Hadith the current generation of human has history of maximum 7000 years ." This is what you wrote and first post is answer to that.

        What you said later is below
        "Imam Sadiq (peace ion him) said that all current humans are children of Adam and Eve and before current generation 7 generation of humans lived on earth and all extincted before Adam and Eve."

        Does it mean these 7 generations are not included in 7,000 years as mentioned in The Quran & Hadith ?

        If you say YES to this what does it mean , try to realize ....

        According to Torah, Bible, Quran & Hadith, Adam & Eve were first human being , so if you want to disagree with The Quran, that's definitely is your individual choice...........
        • May 22 2011: "Does it mean these 7 generations are not included in 7,000 years "
          yes

          "According to Torah, Bible, Quran & Hadith, Adam & Eve were first human being"
          yes but first human of current generation.

          I am not perfect in other books but as I know according to Koran before Adam and Eve there was some humans in earth and also they had reprobation and bloodshed in earth.
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/2:30

          if there was no human before Adam and Eve why angels asked such question from God?
          before this question God punished then and banish them 14000 year and after 14000 year forgiven them.


          can you explain how Koran say Adam and Eve are firs human? and no human before them?
        • thumb
          May 26 2011: 1Corinthians 15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

          Luke 3:38 ....the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

          This is the final part of a complete genealogy from Jesus to Adam. Adam (son of God) was the first man according to the bible. The Jews, who kept the records reckon this year is 5771 (from Adam) ie the earth is 5771 years old, by their reckoning.

          “And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil)” (Surah 5:46)

          The Quran seems to validate the bible.
          :-)
        • May 26 2011: Dear Peter,
          yes. Adam and Eve was the first humans of current generation on earth and they 2 were created by God. and we all are their children. but this not mean no human existed before Adam and Eve on earth and all extincted before Adam. as Koran and sayings of prophet show humans existed before Adam. but they were wise? with prophet? with religion? or like animals? its not clear. only it is mentioned they existed and they were cruel:
          http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/2:30

          "The Quran seems to validate the bible."
          yes sure. both are from one God. no wonder if they validate each other. also Torah and Psalms.
          there are many verses in Koran about Bible and Jesus and Maria(peace on them). please look:
          http://tanzil.net/#search/quran/%D8%B9%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A (Jesus (peace on him))
          http://tanzil.net/#search/quran/%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AC%D9%8A%D9%84 (Bible)
          http://tanzil.net/#search/quran/%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%85 (Maria (peace on her))

          (please click on each result and then click translate)
        • thumb
          May 27 2011: Hi S R
          If you have been reading my posts, you will realise I am a Christian. You may know that Christians worship Jesus Christ as God our creator. This would put me at odds with both Allah and the Quran. So while the Quran may validate the Bible to some extent, the Bible certainly does not validate the Quran.
          It is a common misconception that the Muslim God & the Christian God are the same. Jesus is my God, Allah is your God. They are not the same.
          Regarding the previous creation you talk about. Some Christians also believe this.
          http://www.reasons.org/
          Most Christians don't; I will explain what the Bible says. God cannot look on sin, neither can there be sin in heaven. Sin causes death. Death entered the world because of Adam & Eve, who exercised their right to chose, & chose to sin. Mankind has chosen to sin ever since.
          There is only one way that sin could be neutralised; if a sinless eternal being gave himself up to death. So God came to earth in the person of Jesus & paid the price, so that all who believe are free from sin & death.
          OK, so death is caused by sin, there was no sin before Adam, therefore there was no death before Adam. If there was then Jesus died for nothing. So if your pre-Adam people existed & died then we are all lost.
          Most of the Christians who believe as you do normally believe in evolution. So they have to believe that the world is millions of years old. If one doesn't believe in evolution, then the Biblical scenario is entirely possible. There are very good scientific arguments for rejecting evolution & an old earth. The easiest way to get a flavour is to press the video button on google and google "evolution creation debate".

          :-)
        • May 27 2011: Hello Peter,
          actually what you said in a short comment covers many subjects and many questions and most are off-topic and I worry comments be removed by admin.
          so better to continue here:
          http://www.ted.com/conversations/3164/muslim_god_christian_god_are.html
        • thumb
          May 27 2011: Hi S R

          The link doesn't work. I don't think admin is too small minded. I got on topic at the end, but had to give my reasoning. I'll try the link again tomorrow; it's a good subject.
          :-)
        • thumb
          May 28 2011: That's a shame, I would like to understand why.

          :-)
      • thumb
        May 23 2011: Dear S. R. Ahmadi
        Do the above numbers you mentioned make it 195,000 years as evident by fossils ?

        Even if it doesn't make it , no worry, I wrote in my post in your another discussion that strong belief based on religion does not need any proof or reasoning or explanation.

        I also asked you whether you are a strong believer or not. Your answer was that you are strong believer. That's fine. Just go on with your belief, you shouldn't need any reasoning, explanation , facts or proof , for that (which is also evident here very clearly in your different posts, whatever logical, factual one is with you doesn't matter , you are clinged to your belief).

        In such situation may I ask you, not t press community here for reasoning, logic or fact for unlimited time all threads being open ended which actually of no use to you.

        Stay strong believer , have peace in your mind............
        • May 25 2011: Dear Salim.
          "Do the above numbers you mentioned make it 195,000 years as evident by fossils ?"
          please explain this.

          you think my beliefs are with no reasoning?
          I am not so stupid.
          you do not know me and my past. please do not prejudice.
      • thumb
        May 26 2011: Dear S R Ahmadi
        I don't have the audacity to call anyone stupid.
        I told pure belief doesn't need any reasoning, fact finding or logic because that's not science for which those are necessary but not for belief. That does not mean all believers are stupid. So please don't get me wrong.

        Yes I don't know you and again Yes I know you. I don't know you as person, your past history, family life, etc etc. I know you through your participation here. Is not you what you expressing here. are not those representing you? If yes then I know you a bit.

        More thought provokating question of any person can be "do I really know myself"? That helps a lot and I am trying know myself relentlessly.

        My observation is mixing of belief and reasoning or logic creates frustration and destroys peace of mind. You definitely can have other view.

        The question you asked me to explain is self explanatory, I know you are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to understand that. Stay in peace my friend.
        • May 27 2011: "The question you asked me to explain is self explanatory, I know you are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to understand that. Stay in peace my friend. "
          its for English language, not intelligence.
          I did not understand it.
      • thumb
        May 27 2011: I see , problem is English language then .... hmm that's the language we are communicating so far , that's common language between you and me ..........

        Well let me try language of arithmatic to make it clear what I wrote in EnglishI asked you

        7000 years (of the Quran) + 7 generations ( of Imam Sadiq) = How many years ?

        Just answer how many years part.

        Is it clear now ?
      • thumb
        May 27 2011: "it seems human existed from more than 195000 years" you wrote above citing wikipedia....

        Happy that you trying to change your views thats good.

        Yes that's the beauty of science , it evolves with new facts and discovery it does not cling to any archaic belief or thought.

        Just be sure when we are referring human , we are meaning same means Homo Sapiens ..........
  • May 10 2011: is it possible they understand that God selected the Evolution among other possible ways of creation for creating species?

    I'll tell you S.R., I usually like to say that there is no conflict, but usually because religious people need to hear that to at least consider the reality of the situation.
    I'll save that here, it is clear that evolution and the monotheistic religions are surely in conflict with one another, your religion asserts the idea that man is some how special. This by any scientific standard is of course not true whether you consider the sheer vastness of the universe in cosmology or the fact that we can genetically engineer bacteria to produce human insulin.

    Here is the real conflict for most scientists and religion ( at least the traditional religions with personal god type myths). When you are a scientist you are constantly asking questions and questioning authority. The very motto of the Royal Society was " Take nobody's word for it".
    In fact on page 320 of Isaac Newton's "The Principia:Mathematical Principals Of Natural Philosophy" , On the fist page of book three he puts forth 4 Rules for reasoning.
    Rule 1 states
    "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearance"
    The majority of scientists and especially the good ones tend to be atheistic because they are looking at the evidence objectively.
    If a scientist wrote in a publication that let's say String Theory was fact because he "felt" it, that HE knew it because a magic man speaks to him. That this Magic man is behind all things.
    What do you think the readers of the article would think?
    It is a matter of mindset, some people are easier to believe in things, especially if they are raised that way. And others insistently ask questions. It is clear that the scientist absolutely MUST be the latter.
    • Jun 4 2011: Dear Deaven Morris,
      "your religion asserts the idea that man is some how special"
      yes and it is Wisdom: (only wise accept advice)
      http://www.ted.com/conversations/2353/what_is_wisdom_and_can_wisdom.html

      "This by any scientific standard is of course not true"
      is by any scientific standard false?
      science is not complete and is developing.

      "Here is the real conflict for most scientists and religion ( at least the traditional religions with personal god type myths)"
      by religion I mean Islam. other religions are human made or deviated.

      "" Take nobody's word for it". "
      yes this is needed for science. agree.

      "4 Rules for reasoning."
      agree. but only for science. human uses science for technology and welfare. but still there is after death risk. also human is not animal and has wisdom. so better to separate science and believes until they have no proven conflict. if a religion has conflict with proven science that religion is not real religion. there are many other religions and a real human should search for truth and true religion.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

      "What do you think the readers of the article would think?"
      I think he is not a scientist.

      "It is a matter of mindset, some people are easier to believe in things, especially if they are raised that way. And others insistently ask questions. It is clear that the scientist absolutely MUST be the latter."
      yes but none of them prove there is no creator and no Hell. even people made fictions and lies about real God in during history.
  • May 10 2011: Hello,

    Scientists, as far as I can tell, already accept that evolution don't necessarily deny the existence of God. However, religious people not only want God to be accepted by the scientific community but as they see it: as the creator of all life as we know it and not by evolution. I agree with you, evolution might be a "tool" of God to create and develop but many religious people don't agree. As for scientists, the majority does not agree as well but can't actually deny it because there is no evidences otherwise. There is, however, evidences that the Earth is 4,6 billions years old.
    As far as extinctions go, humans were remarkingly close to it as a ice age nearly kill every human and narrow our numbers at the time to a few hundreds (hence the very similiar DNA we know share despite our "age" as species)
  • May 9 2011: Hello S R. The reason that there has been no extinction of the human race is because along with the homo sapien came intelligence. This intelligence allowed man to adapt to any environment.
    • May 10 2011: Dear Derek Payne,
      yes, but still extinction is possible after man adapted to any environment.
      power of Nature is more than human and many disaster is possible in environments.
      adapting to any environment does not mean impossibility of Extinction.
      • May 10 2011: HI again. Human life spread to all parts of the globe. Natural disasters happened just like they do today, they would not destroy all life, only in the place of the catastrophy. If all life were to become extinct, it would start again at square one. A dormant life was the origin of life before and there is no reason why it would not be so again.
        • May 10 2011: Hi Derek,
          is there any evidence showing that if the human life was in some limited parts of earth of in all globe?
          is distribution pattern of human at tens of thousands years ago understood today?

          "Natural disasters happened just like they do today"
          please note that the earth has history as long as near 4.5 Billion years. and the written history is not more than 5000 years and also religious text mention history as long as max. 7000 years. and the other information is gained from archaeology and scientific research. so we can not say certain that no global disaster happened in earth. we know max history of 5000 years.
          I do not know if scientific research can say that if any global disaster happened or not.
          at least religious texts like Torah, Bible, Koran say a Global disaster happened at near 6000 years ago:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah
          http://goo.gl/tDRNw
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_flood

          then how science can be sure that:
          "Natural disasters happened just like they do today"
          is there any evidence?

          "A dormant life was the origin of life before and there is no reason why it would not be so again."
          sorry, please explain this.
      • May 10 2011: Hi. To explain the dormant life at the beginning; lets start by using the virus as an example. I use the virus but other forms of dormancy would do just as well. The virus can live in extreme heat, extreme cold and even in a vacuum. If there was a global disaster, it would be nigh on impossible to destroy it. It could also live in the very hostile conditions of early Earth. This dormancy is present in all life, which goes a long way to providing some proof of our beginnings.
        • May 11 2011: thanks for explain.
          yes dormant life exist. but can it prove no Extinction happened in history of earth?
      • May 11 2011: Hi, does it really matter wether there was a mass extinction?
        • May 12 2011: Hi,
          yes. it can help showing there is no conflict between God and Evolution.
      • May 12 2011: Hi S R, there can be no conflict betwen god and evolution. It's like saying there is a conflict between batman and Sir Winston Churchill. Sorry but that is how it comes over to me.
        • Jun 4 2011: Dear Derek,
          religion says current generation of human is created by God (Adam and Eve) near 7000 years ago and other generations of humans existed before Adam and Eve. and current generation is not related to apes.
          but scientists say other things.
          is this conflict or not?
  • May 9 2011: does Evolution theory consider any possible extinction of human during history of earth?
    if no why?

    is there any evidence disproving this saying of Imam Sadiq?
    • Jun 2 2011: @SR: "is there any evidence disproving this saying of Imam Sadiq?"

      I think the Imam Sadiq could learn something from a fellow wise man:

      A neighbour came to the gate of Mulla Nasruddin's yard. The Mulla went to meet him outside.
      "Would you mind, Mulla," the neighbour asked, "lending me your donkey today? I have some goods to transport to the next town."
      The Mulla didn't feel inclined to lend out the animal to that particular man, however. So, not to seem rude, he answered:
      "I'm sorry, but I've already lent him to somebody else."
      All of a sudden the donkey could be heard braying loudly behind the wall of the yard.
      "But Mulla," the neighbour exclaimed. "I can hear it behind that wall!"
      "Who do you believe," the Mulla replied indignantly. "The donkey or your Mulla?"
      • Jun 3 2011: Dear Arvind Venkataramani,
        very interesting.
        thanks.
        I love stories of Mulla Nasruddin.
        I have read or heard many of them but I want to have time and its complete book.
        Mulla Nasruddin was a great clever Muslim leader and scientist. but he was leaving the time of a cruel emperor that killed him if he wanted to strictly critique the policies of that emperor. so he selected the language of joke and showed himself as a crazy man in people and used joke to spared his messages to people.
        anyway I did not understand your meaning and relation of this story to this topic. can you explain clear?
        if you mean we should believe scientists or God and creation of Adam and Eve. I want to say there is no conflict if we accept both together.