Do you know WikiIslam ?

[R00tKiT]

I didn't say the Arabic golden age.
You also didn't respond to my comment's point.

You made the ridiculous claim that Islam is responsible for "killing" the Golden age, any textbook on Islamic history will tell you that this era ended with the Mongol conquests, and the subsequent destruction of libraries in Baghdad (namely the famous House of Wisdom), without mentioning executing a caliph and destroying entire cities...

All this meant there was no more cultural or economic flourishing. You just can't build a civilization and advance human knowledge if your own homeland is subjected to foreign invasion.

Who knows who that first person was.
It is clear that multiple cultures developed their own answers to these questions and so, they ended up with different religions.
Sure, most of them settled on the idea of gods, which are basically supermen or some fantastic alien lifeforms, and the most important thing: the idea of the soul.

Look, there are countless theories out there about how religion appeared/evolved. In the end, it doesn't matter.
None of this tells you anything about the truth-value of any religious claim. You might actually be committing a genetic fallacy

On other words, all religions do not mention these things and one could claim that all religions are not against such scientific concepts.

However, if the gods are making humans and so on, then it is not nature that is doing it and therefore, religions and science do not fit together.

It's not really difficult to reconcile modern science with religion, you know. Maybe some extreme ideas like young earth creationism are problematic, but this only concerns the biblical account. The Islamic account is different in many respects. You can even find ambitious exegesis of some Qur'anic verses agreeing with very recent findings in cosmology. 

The problem with that is that you are going to have to explain it to biologist.

It is hard to determine who is the first human since in terms of biology, a human doesn't have an exact definition.

Well I think the biologist's foremost task is to accurately define a human. If one just keeps changing definitions to avoid discussing the serious issues, then clearly we will never go anywhere with this.

And it seems you forgot something: however you define the word "human", you will necessarily have a first human fitting this definition.

Frankly, I can't believe people here still doubt there is a first human, it's just .. dumb.

And if you are claiming that there was a first human, who were his family members? Were they human as well?

His family members could be slightly sub-human, for the lack of a better word. It's commonplace that parents give birth to brighter human beings than themselves (be it physical or mental ability), the same thing could have happened at the very beginning of the human species.