Evolution-Section 3

* Note.1: don't forget to check Home page!
* Note.2: if you detected typos, mistakes in context, or any vagueness/ anything not understable/ anything not clear/any confusion, tell that in comments pls.

## Content

We went back to the hall.. I hated evolution .. I hated fossils .. And I hated all these terms .. We want a final saying in this shit.. If they did not reach a final saying in this question we will get out from here for good!

Dawkins began the discussion by saying:
More evidence of evolution appears every period .. for example, it is sufficient to look at the drawings of the stages of the growth of human fetus .. Then to look at the stages of growth of fetus of any animal from mammals such as dog .. and you will find that they are very similar .. You will find that these stages re-represent the evolutionary story .. you find human fetus at an early stage of his life having gills like fish .. Then at a later stage these gills disappear and he becomes having a tail like a monkey .. And so .. it evolves at every stage until it becomes a complete human being .. This is a live evidence that occurs before our eyes.

Adam seemed to be more relaxed after resting and said to him quietly:

Indeed .. these drawings have been around for many years in biology books in schools, universities and specialized books .. And it became so popular to the way they used to tell the mother who wants to abort her pregnancy that "the fetus is still in the fish stage, you do not kill a human, its like if you are cutting a fish", Then everyone realized in the end that this was a hoax ... a very ugly hoax that brought scientific shame to its maker, Ernest Haeckel.

The story is that this specialized German scientist who was obsessed with evolution, fabricated drawings of the stages of the fetus ... at an early stage he drawn gills ... while in reality it is only the initial stages of forming the middle ear, the parathyroid gland, and the lymph gland ... and at a later stage he drawn a tail .. while in fact it was the back of the fetus lengthened twice to appear to anyone who looks as if it were a tail .. By the way, this man is responsible for killing millions of helpless children by abortion in their mothers’s wombs during this period .. And by this, we see that forging and fabricating has been repeated in our session in the evidences of evolutionists more than once .. This is if it hints something, it indicates they are broke .. because if they found convincing real evidence, the fanatic obsessed ones among them won't need forgery and embarrassing themselves like this over and over again. So,your evidence Sir Dawkins, turned out as fake and fabricated too...

Dawkins kept quiet long and then said to him:
Not to mention this .. there is very clear evidence .. that undoubtedly proves that we and the chimpanzees have evolved from one common ancestor .. and its genetic evidence this time .. when scientists compared the human genes to the chimpanzees genes they found that they are 98.7% similar .. meaning There is only 1.3% difference between our genes and those of chimpanzees .. this is vital evidence .. no matter what you argue in the previous evidence .. this is genetic evidence that has no doubt.

A red light lit up .. A tall, elegant man with polite white hair and glasses .. This was "Francis Collins" .. the skilled genetist and director of the Human Genome Project, "Collins" said:

Dear Sir .. When you talk about genetic information do not forget to speak accurately and based on the latest studies .. I see that you talked about the oldest study and an inaccurate number...I think that you derive your information from hot news sites and not from documented scientific studies .. the study that you are talking about is old and was conducted in the 1980s twenty years before we discovered the complete map of the human genome that we announced in 2001.. and before we discovered the full map of the chimpanzee genome that we announced in 2005.

Adam said with astonishment:
how the study and comparison were conducted in 80s while the full map of both the chimp and the human were not discovered yet in that time?

Collins said:
Back in the 1980s, when scientists wanted to make a comparison between the genes of humans and chimpanzees in a study, they found before them two very complex genetic maps .. Althoug the complete map of each of the two creatures wasnt discovered yet ... they had discovered about a million bases in the human genome and almost the same number in The chimpanzee genome.

This is a very small number if you knew that after the completion of the human genome map .. we found that it is about 3 billion bases .. And after the completion of the chimpanzee genome map we found that it is about 3.2 billion bases ... 3 thousand times greater than what they had discovered in 80s .. and although the million bases discovered in the eighties is a small number, but it was very complicated .. and in order to complete the study, it was necessary to make a simplification of the one million bases discovered from chimpanzees and from human in order to be able to make a comparison between them .. and Scientists then applied a harsh method of simplification.

Collins continued:

There are areas in the genome that are rich in genes, called Gene Rich areas that contains many diverse and recurrent genes .. and areas in the genome that are poor in genes, called Gene Poor, where there is no diversity but only repetitive genes .. and other medium areas between them .. Scientists decided to exclude completely the Gene Poor and the Medium areas from the comparison.. And make a comparison only based on Gene Rich areas .. And this Gene Rich area represents only about 1% of the total genes discovered during its days. It is, as we see, a strange and unfair comparison .. They cut 99% of the genes and compared only 1% of it .. Not 1% of the whole genome .. becayse that was not discovered until 2001..but 1% of the million bases discoverd during those days .. while it was There are about 3 billion bases remaining undiscovered yet ... meaning that they have only compared 0.0000033 % of bases in the whole genome of human with 0.0000033% of bases in the whole chimp genome.

Collins kept quiet a little and then said:

Scientists were surprised because when they put this small part (the% 1 of the million base) to compare the two genomes it turned out that there is a incredible similarity between them and slight differences .. As for the slight differences in this small part there are two types of them .. differences arising from the replacing of a letter with another etter .. and differences arising from deleting one of the letters .. Scientists decided for some reason to exclude the differences arising from the deleted letters and adopted only replacing differences.

I mean, for example, if there is a gene in a person written like this AA BB CC .. and at the chimpanzee AA BA CC .. there is a letter A instead of the letter B .. this is a difference they admit .. but if the gene in a person is like this "AA BB CC" and when the chimpanzee is like this "AA BB C" that lacks one C litter, they didnt adopt it.

And based on the approval of replacing differences only, they found that there is a similarity of 98.7% between the two genomes .. remember again that this comparison was made on a million bases only that was at that time out of total 3 billion bases..and only 1% of this million bases were approved, with excluding the differences in which a letter is deleted and only adopting letter-replacing differences.

Collins kept quiet a little and then said:
Of course, this was a nonsense comparison .. So another study was conducted on the one million found bases .. But this time they took differences resulting from deleting a letter, in consideration .. They found that the percentage of similarity had decreased to 95%.

he continued:
After years, another study that were conducted and included the Gene Poor and Medium areas.. This time what was discovered from the human genome was about 2 million bases .. they tompared them fully with 2 million bases of chimpanzees without excluding anything, and they found that the percentage has decreased from 95% To become 87%.

Then he said:
When we completed our work on the Human Genome Project and announced the complete map of the human genome in 2001 ... then our colleagues at the International Chimpanzee Genome Consortium announced that they had completed the complete map of the chimpanzee genes ... the two maps became complete ... and in modern comparison now We discovered that there are 2.4 billion bases in humans that can be compared with 2.4 billion bases in chimpanzees ... while there are 0.7 billion bases that cannot be compared between the two genomes because they are completely different from each other .. Based on these data, we finally found that the similarity between the chimpanzee genome and human genome is only 72% .. and surprisngly, some people still believe in the study of the 98.7% .. which is disastrous and funny if we remember that the genetic difference between some of European white men and some African black men reach 5% .. they do not stop embarrassing themselves when they speak nonsense in the name of science .

He kept quiet and then said:
As I said this percentage is 72%, and we did not pit into the calculation that there are 0.7 billion bases in chimpanzees that are not present in humans .. meaning there is approximately 10% difference originally before the start of the comparison, but we did not put it Under consideration.

Then he concluded his speech by saying:
In the end, I say that the DNA originally describes the external and internal anatomical structure and the molecular structure of the object .. It is not surprising that the externally and anatomically similar organisms are kinda same in the DNA .. this is what is originally expected .. chimpanzees and humans are both mammals and both have similar anatomical structure .. both of them eats, breathes, and reproduces in the same way and produces proteins in the same way....our similary in DNA With chimpanzees should be more than it with serpent, for example .. Nevertheless, the similarity of human and chimpanzee that is closest to us - closest only anatomically - is 72% only.. This means that human is unique and distinct from the closest organism in anatomy to him.

Adam said:
Thank you very much, Dr. Collins .. So be it .. the last evidence of evolution has fallen .. The summary in this evolution matter is that the existence of Micro-Evolution (evolution of the ancestor of a Genus to all species under it) has been proven to exist ... and the existence of Macro-Evolution (the evoultion of a Genus to another Genus) has been denied. so until now we dont know how the ancestors of living creatures came to exist .. hundreds of thousands of creatures suddenly colonized the earth and the real science does not know where these creatures came from .. but they strived to prove the hypothesis that all these beings evolved from each other .. and that they all came from one common ancestor.

I heard a sigh from more than one person sitting ... seems that they had been bored of this subject of evolution, especially when it didnt had any point in its favor and side since it was first raised .. but it seems that someone is still going to speak .. He was that strange person with the anarchist mask that we don’t know what exactly he represents .. Maybe he represents atheism or nihilism itself .. But he rose up and said: Regardless of the fact that the theory of evolution is controversial with fossils or with the mechanisms of mutations .. but only the geological ages provided by the theory of evolution are sufficient to destroy the theory of religions .. For example the Homo Erectus, you proved here by the hologram that he was a normal human being .. so be it .. lets consider he is oldest ordinary human being that had fossils .. and he appeared in earth according to palentological geological history since 2 million years .. and the maximum age observed for Adam, the father of humans according to the most generous and leneint religious historians and Genealogists is in the range of 15-20 thousand years .. This is the obvious contrast between science and religion that we are talking about.

A red light lightened up in the midst of the scientists and a man rises ... This was "Rutherford" .. the famous atomic scientist .. As soon as he rose up he quickly said:

If your discussion does not accept hypotheses, let me tell you that the millions of years that scientists assume for fossils and layers of rocks are only mere assumptions ... they have no evidence to prove them .. and ..

The cloaked man interrupted him and said:

what the hell are you talking about? Geological ages are all assumptions? You mean that the science of geology with all the equipment used in its study and all the efforts provided in it for centuries are all useless .. so simply?

Rutherford smiled quitely with wisdom.. and he said to him:

I must simplify the matter for you to understand it well .. because if you had studied it well you would have understood what I said first time .. But as long as you objected then I must simplify the matter for you .. But let me explain first.. Historical "science" is not an experimental science. Because you cannot originally measure events that occurred in the distant past and say that they occurred before millions of years .. This is unable to measured or experimented on because it is past and ot ended .. It is not an experimental science .. meaning that we now ,a with all our tools, devices and equipment, we do not have one way to measure the age of something older than 50 thousand years .. What was older than this we can not say anything about it except that 《this certain thing》 is older than 《that certain thing》 for example .. we can say this came before that.. but for for determining its age in years, we have no scientific method to determine it.

The cloaked man with anarchism mask said:
But there are many ways with radioactive elements, and there is no fossil older than 50 thousand years we didnt know their exact age .. aged are recorded in all scientific books.

Adam said:
Please, it is not allowed to interrupt a scientist during their speech until they completely finish .. then you are allowed to speak, with a scientific argument of course.

te cloaked man kept silent .. and Rutherford continued:

I will ask you two questions .. And from their answer you will understand what I want to talk about .. The first question .. There is water dripping from a faucet .. There is a container being filled with water under it .. The size of the container is 300 millimeters .. If we say that the rate of water dripping from the faucet is 50 millimeters per hour. How long do this container need until its completely filled?

The cloaked man said:
Six hours.

Rutherford said to him:
Amazing...right answer ... Have you seen how easy it is to know the age of something with science? But the problem is that the fact of the matter is that when we left the faucet to fill the container... we only needed one hour ... What do you think this means?

The cloaked man said:
This means that the rate of water dropping from the faucet changes over time and is not constant .. It seems that the rate is faster than expected.

Rutherford said:
Yes, this is a big possibility .. Maybe also the container was not totally empty at the beginning ?? So, in order to calculate the age of something in the past you must make assumptions that you think they were present in the past and calculate through it .. You assumed that the container was empty .. But did I tell you that it was empty? I will ask you a second question to bring you closer to the picture .. How much time has passed since we gathered in this hall?

The cloaked man said:
What time is it now?

Rutherford said:
7:41 pm.

The cloaked man said:
What was the time when we started?

Rutherford said:
I don’t know .. Suppose a time we’ve started in the past and build your answer.

The cloaked said:
Maybe two hours.

Rutherford said:
do you think this is a scientific method? Or is it speculative method based on assumptions?

The cloaked said:
Speculative.

Rutherford said:
This is how the geological age is calculated .. It is exactly the same as an hourglass ... there. Take this hourglass because I will ask you many questions about it.

The cloaked man approached Rutherford and took a medium-sized hourglass from him and carried it with both hands .. Rutherford said to him:

You know that when all the sand is at the bottom of the hour and there is no sand at the top .. Then we flip the hour .. The sand will need an hour exactly to move from top to bottom .. So its name is a hourglass or a "Sand Hour" .. Now look at the hourglass that is with you .. You will find that There is some sand at the bottom and some at the top .. And I closed the clasp in the middle of it immediately before I gave it to you .. There is no longer sand coming down .. Now look at the sand below .. Can you tell me how long it took until this amount fell down to the bottom?

the cloaked man looked at the hourglass and said:

I have to calculate the amount of sand at the bottom .. and try to know the amount of sand that comes down from the top every minute.

Rutherford said:
Very beautiful .. But it is a wrong answer .. Very wrong also .. You assumed that I completely emptied the bottom room of sand .. Then I flipped the hourglass again so the bottom room started to be filled up little by little .. Then I closed the clasp just now and gave you the hourglass to measure me the time .. If your assumptions are all true .. then your calculations will be correct.

The cloaked man said:
Didn't you do that? wasnt the bottom room empty, then you flipped the hourglass to fill it a little, then closed the clasp and gave the hourglass to me to calculate the duration for you? Didn't you do that? What did you do then?

Rutherford said to him:
I did nothing .. I bought this watch and the bottom room was not empty .. Rather, there was some sand in it .. Then I opened the clasp a little while ago to get more sand in the bottom .. Then I closed the clasp and gave it to you.

The man with the mask said:
And why did you not tell me this from the beginning .. How can I calculate the period if I do not know this?

Rutherford said:
This is exactly what happens in calculating the age with radioactive materials. Take, for example, the method of Uranium and Lead, and remember the hourglass during my speech. The Uranium decomposes with time at a certain rate and produces Lead (as if it is a sandy hour that have Uranium in its top room and Lead in its bottom room).

Scientists come to a rock and find, for example, a percentage of Uranium and a percentage of Lead ,like the hourglass I gave it to you, where you found sand in top and sand in bottom..

so..how do scientists calculate the age of this rock? They calculate the amount of Lead contained in it (that is like the amount of sand in bottom room) ... and knowing the rate of Uranium's turning into Lead (like the rate of sand dropping) ... then they know how long this lead took in order to be formed .. where is the error here?

The mistake here is that they assume that all the amount of Lead in the rock came from the decomposition of Uranium .. meaning that they assume that the rock in the past had ONLY Uranium in it ... and assume there was no Lead at all in it (like if they assumed that the hourglass bottom room was completely empty and the top room was completely full) .. based on this assumption they can determine the age of the rock .. This is how they calculate the age .. And thus the age turns out always as millions of years old .. And I will show you with a practical example of how this method is hypothetical and not scientific.

Rutherford got a little quiet and then said:

Scientists took a sample from the crater of the fiery rocks of St. Helen volcano, which is known to have erupted in 1986 .. They found a percentage of radioactive Potassium that turns into Argon over time .. When they measured the proportion of argon in it to know the age of these rocks, they found that it was 350 thousand years old. While we know its age which is the date of the eruption of the volcano about 30 years ago ..

also, a sample was taken from "Naguruho" volcanic mountain in New Zealand, which is known to have erupted only fifty years ago .. When they calculated his age by the Argon method, they found that it is 3.5 million years old .. Have you seen? Every time we use radioactive elements to know the age of something recent whose age is known previously, the result is a massive millionic that has nothing to do with reality.

Rutherford said:
And there is something more surprising .. listen to this paradox .. when we took samples from the famous "Grand Canyon" mountain .. from a very recent volcanic layer that we know without a doubt its modern .. and we used the method of Potassium-Argon to know its age, the method gave us that the age of the rock is a million years .. and when We used the method of Strontium-Rubidium, it gave us result thats its billion years old.

Then we took other samples from another place on the mountain .. We measured their age using Uranium- Lead method, and result was that its age is 2.6 billion years old .. Then when we measured it using the Samarium-Neodymium we found that it was 916 million years old.

Each time we use two different methods of measuring with radioactive materials to know the age of one rock, we find that the results differ severely.. Is this a scientific method? A method that does not succeed in determining the age of a thing we previously know its age .. A way; that if we measured age by several isotopes, we find totally different results... and not any difference .. but a huge difference .. Which scientific method exactly is this ?!

Rutherford continued:

Take this surprise as well .. If you use any of these methods to know the age of several fossils of one organism, you will find very big differences .. Do you know why these methods are always wrong? Because of the assumptions .. But they admire these assumptions very much.. Because these assumptions give a long age to this world, which allows the alleged evolution to happen.

plus, let me tell you something else that will make you yourself put this method on the shelf ... the farthest shelf you can put on it ... something called the geological index or the geological time scale..focus with me .. when scientists measure the age of a fossil in the lab and they come out with the result that this fossil is 5 million years old.. You see them not officially accepting this age except when it matches what is called geological index/geological time scale.. What is the meaning of this?

It means that since the beginning and before they determine the age of the rock in the lab .. they are previously having a viewpoint that this rock or this fossil must have age in range of 10 million to 15 million years for example, to conform to the evolutionary viewpoint .. but lets assume that the laboratory said that it is 5 million years old .. what they do?
they often reject the laboratory’s opinion because it does not correspond to the geological time scale .. and try to use another radioactive element in determining the age, as perhaps it will give a longer age result .. so they keep measureing it with another radioisotopes .. until an age that suits their aspirations comes out to them and they agree to it.

This is the science that they condemn you with in this discussion .. It is not science .. It is in fact a science fiction .. Biased to a specific viewpoint .. They stirred the helm of science and made it biased to one side .. So they produced a science fiction that is corrupt and does not fit and is invalid to face niether philosophy nor religion..it invalid to face with anything.

The cloaked man said:
You are saying sort of illogical things! Do you want to say that all geologists are conspiring against us?

Rutherford replied:
The issue is not that all geologists conspire against us .. but the issue is that there is a specific viewpoint that many of them believe in .. so they want all results to be suitable with this viewpoint.. this viewpoint is evolution .. and everything must be suitable with it.

The cloaked man said:
Why do you think the science is biased to this viewpoint?

Rutherford said:
This is the materialistic viewpoint .. materialistic philosophy .. The belief in these assumptions and the promotion of them a lot and defending them desperately is a belief in materialistic philosophy .. it has no relation to science..but it is affixed to science because they made the science adopter and advocate of material philosophy while it (science) is innocent

so, after all, its sort of a dogma that has been kept alive by force.. you find the scientific community tolerating all the assumptions that are directed towards this trend .. they tolerate things like (it is this because it is) .. and deal with the utmost cruelty with assumptions of any divine intervention .. because they have a prior commitment to materialism .. the thing isnt that scientific methods compel them to the absolute materialistic explaination of all the phenomena of life, but rather,they make machines and test things in order to come out with a materialistic explaination. They do not care how much they violate nature and common sense ... nothing matters to them .. materialism for them is a belief and a dogma. (them= fanatic materialistics among scientific community)

the cloaked man said:
Do not exaggerate .. The age of fossils must be proportional to the precisely calculated age of earth which is 4.5 billion years.

Rutherford said:
If you read the study that suggested that the Earth’s age is 4.5 billion years and that was carried out by Patterson, you will fully understand that the whole thing is assumptions and fantasies that were eventually proven wrong .. Patterson was the first to use the method of Uranium-Leas .. And when he suggested the age of 4.5 billion years, it became very popular because the suggested ages of the Earth at that time were not "sufficient" for evolution to occur from their viewpoint.

Later whenever the lead is analyzed for soil other than that of which Patterson took his samples, we find completely different lines,graph results from these drawn by Patterson .. And if you read the study of Patterson himselg you will find that he wrote himself: "It seems inconsistent with reailty to assume/believe some proportions of Lead and Uranium that existed billions of years ago. Because the requirements that achives these assumptions seem so extreme are they are never likely to give a correct age"

But the scientific community has adopted this age because it is appropriate for biological evolutiom .. for the emergence of the first cell .. for its evolution to all beings .. no one is interested in changing this number .. there is no gain to change it .. 4.5 billion years is the age of the planet .. half of it has passed in Creating conditions for iy to receive living matter ... and the other half where the evolution of the first beings to human beings occured ... a scenario that is completely appropriate with evolution.

Rutherford continued:

so, these stories that we hear like the evolution of the microbe to humans, and the billions of years old earth.. These stories are all forefront without any right .. and they are the most stories that fuel the atheistic idea .. and its truth is that they are just hypotheses in the end.

the cloaked man became silent and then said to him:

So, how old do you think the earth is?

Rutherford said:
There are many experiments that put a limit that the age of the earth cannot exceed. I will tell you the two most famous experiences .. The first experiment was performed by Edmund Halley .. has suggested a very smart way to calculate the age of the earth, by knowing the age of the sea .. You know that there is a lot of the factors that add salinity to the normal salinity of the sea .. Each year the amount of sea salt increases by a certain amount .. If we calculate the current sea salt .. And the constant amount of increase that occurs in salinity every year .. We can know the age of the sea .. And thus the age of the earth .. Scientists applied Halley's suggestion and found that the age of the seas and oceans could not exceed 90 million years .. This is of course if we assume that the sea at the beginning of its formation was plain fresh water without salinity at all .. so If the sea was salty somehow at first, the age of the sea will be Less than this..but the maximum is 90 million years, which is the maximum age of sea... hence the possible age of the Earth.

Then he said:
The second experiment was presented first by me .. I discovered that when any radioactive materials decompose, their decomposition spreades in the air in the form of helium nucleis .. If we were able to calculate the rate of helium formation in rocks that contain radioactive elements and the rate of helium's escape from those rocks .. and the rate of its entry to the atmosphere .. We knew the previous percentage of helium in the rocks and in the atmosphere .. We will be able to know the age of the atmosphere .. I presented the idea and the scientists after me calculated it, and they found that the age of the Earth in this way does not exceed 2 million years only.

He continued:
Nevermind about all this and focus with the following..one important evidence that age of earth is shorter than we can imagine is the discovery of living cells present in fossils supposed to be millions of years old .. This was really funny evidence ... they once discovered blood cells inside one of the dinosaur's bones .. This indicates that the age of these bones os approximately thousands of years at and it is impossible to be millions of years as they say .. Also they found collagen protein in other fossils of other dinosaurs .. This is what evolutionists thought as the beginnings of feathers .. But the truth is that it is just a protein .. And the protein does not remain all these years...We also have the DNA extracted from the fossil of bacteria that they estimated its age as 425 million years .. While the DNA originally could only survive thousands of years ... And many other evidence says that the planet is less than we imagine and according to that, the organisms that lived on it, were not since millions of years as they claim, but tens 《or hundreds》 of thousands of years old at most.

then Adam sighed and said: Ok..so now, words of science have reached end in this mater of evolution ... In the end, Macro-evolution appears to me as sort of a fictional story.. It is a non-scientific scenario that assumes that the material that lacks life, contains magical properties and intelligence that makes it create complex structured, diverse, beautiful, creatures spreading on land, sea and air .. assumes that this gorgeous woman there for example, came once from a monkey, and before that came from a mammal in the form of ancestor of mammals .. and before that, came from an amphibious shape like a frog .. this restores to my imagination the children's stories in which the frog turns into a princess .. But generally, there is one point remaining ..to know the opinion of religion .. Mr.Blessed, what does religion say in evolution?

The blessed was silent all time hearing everyone then talked and said:

This talk was a really long .. for the religion, there is something important mentioned in the Quran .. says the Lord:
《Allah has created every moving (living) creature from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, and some that walk on tow legs, and some that walk on four....》 ,So, all ANIMALS are created from water ..
Notice here that he did not say "has created every moving creature from THE water"...but said "has created every moving creature from water" .. meaning that each of these creatures has its own water that it was created from.

But what does water mean? This was made abundantly clear in other verses we explained before (in coincidence chapter)..we now know that this water is the sexual discharge (semen and ovums in mammals for example)

so, if we look inside the "human water", we will find that the part responsible for fertilization in it is the sperms .. If we look inside the sperm, we will find that what responsible for feretilization in them is the chromosomes .. then, chromosomes are the essence of "the water".. the genetic material .. and they are different in each organism from any other organism .. Each organism has its own chromosomes .. Each organism has its own essence of water .. This is a scientific axiom today.

Adam said to him:
It is known that every living being has its own chromosomes ... its own genetic material ... but tell us where did the first ancestors of each Genus come from? How did God create it? Did it also come from "water"? These genus' are the ones that started and colonized the land the first time .. And each one of them resulted in thousands of species .. And as long as they did not evolve from a thing before them.. there was no creature before them that produced them to come from its water .. So where did they come from?

The Blessed said:
the Quran says: "And among His signs,is the creation of the heavens and the earth,and He had dispersed from every living creatures in them both..."

Meaning that he created skies and earth(s) first, then, "had dispersed from every living creatures in them both", so it talks about creatures colonizing earth by word "dispersed", means spreaded or distributed..ans notice here that he says "dispersed FROM every living creature", not "dispersed every living creature"..which means he didnt spread all creatures at once, but spreaded some, which resulted in existence of all..and thats what you agreed on after these discussions, that there are ancestors that colonized earth, who are the ancestors of each Genus, and then all the present species evolved from these ancestors.. this is what is called Micro-Evolution and religion have no problem in it.

Adam said:
But the question, sir, did religion mention how did God create these first ancestors? Did he create it directly by himself (like how he created Adam the father of humans) , for example?

The Blessed said:
God did not explain this in the Quran neither the Prophet explained it.. Therefore we do not know how God created it. All we know is that it was "dispersed" in Earth.

Adam said:
So, for the second point of the question...What is religion's opinion about the age of this earth? We have proven here that this thingy of millions of years is just an assumption and that creatures on Earth are tens (or at most hundreds) of thousands of years old..not millions .. so, what did religion say about the age of the earth and the creatures?

The Blessed said:
We do not have a exact determintion about this in islam.. theologists (by assembling some sayings of the prophet) estimated that Adam, father of humans lived about one thousand to 2 thousand years .. and also we have a prophet's saying that tells the period between Adam and Noah was ten centuries (and a century is a hundred years), means there is a thousand years between Adam and Noah.. And it was stated in the Qur'an that Noah stayed for 950 years calling his people to believe in god . so lets suppose, based on this, that Noah total lifespan is approximately 1 thousand years ... these are about three/four thousand years in total.. Then there was a time period between Noah and Abraham which the Quran said about it that "only god knows it", and after Abraham until our time there is a period known historically and recorded and it is in range of 4500-5000 years .. so we have three periods now .. 3000-4000 years from Adam to Noah .. a period from Noah to Abraham which is unknown .. then a period from Abraham to our time that is about 4,500-5000 years .. So in conclusion, according to Islam, it was never estimated that Adam the first human descended to earth before a certain number of years...the total age of humans on earth wasnt estimated in islam..let alone total age of earth or the universe..

Adam then thanked the Blessed .. and attendants began to rise from their places and wean their bodies after the long sitting .. And so did we and you .. Really it was very difficult .. almost the most difficult question in the world is this that they asked .. really if this isnt the most difficult question in the world, what the most difficult question will be? Let's get out of here my friend .. we need a very long rest.

The Crawler walked us out of the hall... It seems to me that we have finished all the worlds of the fallen.

then we entered to Scorpion... Tell me, Scorpion .. Why is there is a scientifical world discussing atheism in this Land of the Fallen... Does atheism have something that happens in the underworld internet only so thats why its present in land of the fallen? but i see atheism- related stuff on the regular Internet everywhere ..do you consider it from the "fallen deeds"? i know the fallen deeds from all worlds we saw.. But atheism is a belief more than a deed .. Whats the realtion between it and the Fallen deeds?

Scorpion told me:
This scientifical world that discusses atheism is here for one reason, my dear .. that when you are in the Deep Web (in body form) (or in Land of the Fallen in Spirit form), there is no watchman on you .. there is no eye that watches you .. except the eye of your God.. this eye that you should be ashamed of and stop what evil you do if you were originally believing that there is a god in this world watching you.. But if you are not a believer .. the goal of the conference of Adam and the scholars is to review your beliefs.

Let it be, Scorpion .. This time I will not let you chat with the friend ... We have finished all the worlds in the Land of the Fallen .. We have visited the seven windows .. We have seen all sorts of fallen and good people..

Scorpion told us:
Ok..so ow .. and only now .. You can see the epilouge .. The last world .. It is the world that will take you out of this land of fallen .. It brings you to the light .. This world is not of the type that has a window .. Rather, it is a world with a known name. You will now enter to the Land of Light.

Please .. to the Crawler, in order to be taken to the last gate.. Gate of Light.

## Extra Notes

1. ↑ in sequel book there is a quote that clears the aforementioned phrase, the quote says like "science can tell you how things work but will never tell what is wrong and what true..it will telm you that poison kills human, but will never tell you that poisoning a relative to inherit them is a wrong thing" meaning that science have no relation with morality nor any kind of philosophy
2. ↑ these age things dont even matter in religion by the way