More Evolution Help

[Collecemall]

Hi,

As I'm apt to do I made a comment on a youtube video. I know first mistake. However, I didn't even bring up science. The person I was communicating with started copying and pasting hundreds of lines of stuff from AIG and other Christian sources trying to drive home that there is proof of God. I didn't bother to respond to her garbage dump of info but simply asked if she had an original thought in her head. And that her doing that did little to disprove my assertion that she was indoctrinated. Seriously 3/4 of the 800+ lines she posted were copied and pasted. In reply someone came to her defense with the posts below. What follows is our exchange. I've never really used forums a whole lot so please try to ignore my ignorance of the quote function. I'm not sure how to add someone that isn't here so I'll do my best and add my replies between the quotes. Now that things are clear as mud here we go.... I guess my questions will follow after you have the relevant info. If you want you can probably skip everything but the last quote from them and my questions. Any highlighting is mine.

collecemall, I see your point clearly, and I want to give you first person reference of fact in which you and millions of folks are unaware about what you are calling indoctrination. I remember 1978 when in elementary school before Thanksgiving of the 5th grade our science books were replaced with science books that were completely themed with the "theory of evolution". Bare in mind that our old ones didn't teach Creationism, the old books had true science experiments and projects. We had real-world experience and assignments. Further, I never put stock in the theory, and I am not the type to follow the common thread of popularity. In fact you have to provide the tested and proven evidence to convince me. Today evolution is the {proselytized indoctrination} stated as fact and if you are skeptical on detail you are "{religious}". You will find, the closer you examine what people are regarding as verified, tested and confirmed knowledge is actually based in fraudulent examples, guise of peer review and bias, and completely assumed notions. No-one can call fraud , reasonable, logical or science- except a proselytizing atheist. But science with regard toward evolution is simple and relative, right? It's not, when fraud participates. Again, "[mainstream science]" as you have stated has more fabrication than validation. Would you like to suggest physical evidence, that validates any proposal of a physical example that validates mainstream theory? I'm skeptical.

Your assertion that science is a fraud is complete crap. That's exactly what science stops. Please give me examples of this unfounded attack on science. The ONLY people that question evolution are groups with a dogma to defend. There is no other theory. ID has no theory. Creationists have no theory. And "Theory" is not "we think so" or "maybe" like you want to define it. Please pick up a book not written by Christian apologists. They have an agenda that they must defend. Scientists are not held to any such limitations. If you are going to assert those things then prove it.
Also, you might want to check out Darwin and what he went through just to get his theory heard. The man feared for his reputation, his life, and his livelihood. Every step along the way the Church and it's people have done EVERYTHING they can to stop scientific progress. You're trying to project the issues your side has onto science and it's unfounded.

The fact of fraud does not strengthen a theory.

1. Lucy as a common physical example
2. Piltdown man http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/the-scientific-process/piltdown-man-hoax/
3. circuit connections in diagrams of transitional {divergent} phylogeny trees. These connections do not exist in verified specimen: bone or fossil examples

How many do you want?

I'm sorry but you'll have to elaborate on what you mean by lucy. Perhaps a complete sentence would be a good start? Trying to use piltdown as some sort of attack on evolution has many problems that should be pretty evident. Yes, it was a fraud which did confuse scientist for a while. Many however were skeptical from the start. Since nature can't lie most take it at face value. However, when something falls too far outside expectations it's held as highly skeptical. Piltdown is a prime example of this. The hoax only succeeded for a period of time. The very fact that it was found by other scientists is evidence that science inherently finds these illusions and acknowledges it's errors. At which point ideas are revised and refined using the scientific method. This is not proof of some fraud of evolution. It's proof that theories are based on solid evidence. None of the "errors" you are pointing out were found by so called "creationists". From Piltdown to Haeckel all of them are the work of other evoltionists. You give me some sort of theory you hold about phylogeny but no examples. If you have something that disproves phylogeny then I suggest you take up AronRa's phylogeny challenge. It would be quite a boon if you could prove phylogeny wrong.

You don't know Lucy? Lucy is evolutions' flagship (one and only) physical specimen claim to divergent transition of the upright and walking primate. It is said- that she is well documented. But one small and extremely incomplete fossil of an ape that died in Africa does not support nor complete, and confirm or validate human and ape {divergence}

I'm not attacking evolution. The theory consists of it's facts. Piltdown is a fact of the fraud that was instrumental in the conception of the theory from the beginning of its public introduction. Evolution is religion in the same relationship as using the word {belief}, belief is belief, regardless of age, race, geography, or delusion of superior intellect and the imaginary idea of {knowledge} being exclusive toward one belief. Or as contrary to modern {greedy} reductionism the one true belief that represents all value and constructs of science.

Actually, when you say I have "some sort of theory" about phylogeny trees. To be accurate, I'm asking the question what makes them fact? When diagram connections that represented by all evolutionist including AronRa in all his videos {against} Creationism, are not verified by specimen, just like the attempts made to verify specimen with"lucy" or Piltdown man. How are you convinced? 

I know what lucy is. Stating that it exists in an incomplete sentence isn't exactly an argument. It's certainly not the only specimen we have as evidence of evloution. It's one of millions of examples at this point. Although it does relate directly to humans. It's still not the only example of that either way. But the fossil record is not the only evidence there is for evolution. Where is the widespread fraud? Pointing to one example of fraud that was displayed to be such by other scientists doesn't exactly bolster your position that evolution is propped up by fraud. Piltdown was NOT instrumental in the theory of evolution. If it were then the theory would collapse when it was removed. By 1950 it was already considered to be an aberration due to other fossil evidence. What makes phylogeny trees fact? I would generally say the evidence they use to justify the classifications would be the starting point. Including individual characteristics and genetics. If phylogeny is not true then that should be easy enough to demonstrate. You seemed to be suggesting that you had a way to falsify phylogeny. That was sort of the whole point of his challenge. I don't claim to be real smart but this seems simple enough of a challenge for you to overcome if it's false. Just demonstrate where the tree falls apart due to the principles you and others subscribe to in creationism.

Lucy is no evidence. Much of what lucy was found to be and is to this day substantially ignored is fraudulant to the same degree as your piltdown man (Eoanthropus dawson). You can view the actual bones of that were found and labeled to be lucy's at this link. http://archive.archaeology.org/0711/etc/lucy_bones.html
How these bones are related or if they are related is a matter of inference and not actual fact. It is even a further stretch to think how they could have reconstructed feet out of a skeleton that had no feet, hands from a skeleton in which they only recovered one finger bone, a pelvis from a portion of a pelvis, not to mention a skull and facial features from scattered bone fragments.
Here is the capricious conjecture of her appearance from those bone fragments.
http://parentjourney.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/img_0367.jpg
Evolutionist Peter Keller says of lucy: “When you get down to the basics of human origins, there's no more important piece than the oldest complete human, or human ancestry remains, than Lucy.” Notice how he liberally uses the word complete. That in itself is a fraudulent statement. When you look at this representation you have to know that Lucy is largely a capricious interpretation of a few bone fragments. Where is the science in that? She is only proof of the scientific community's desire to support their bias through knowingly fraudulent specimens.
Lucy was created in 1974 add 41 years to that fraud and you get 2015. But I believe that the popularity of the deception of evolution is on the increase so she will probably survive longer than that. How long can man afford to believe a lie. People are increasingly surrounding themselves with others that will tell them what their itchy ears want to hear.

You make the claim that the phylongeny tree theory is actually fact. No theory is fact. That is why it is called a theory. This tree states that two sister species lets say Taxon A is a monkey and Taxon B is man. Have a common ancestor to both A and B (monkey and man). The chromosomal make up of A and B are vastly different. Yet science has failed to come up with the many mutations required to link either of these species to a common ancestor. You would have to have several thousand or billions of each mutation to get to the next level of the evolutionary process. Otherwise, you would be seeing mutations of humans walking around all day long. Their fossils would be all around us. Mutations from hands to feet. From quad to biped. From small cranium to large cranium Jaw mutations and the list goes on. Darwin admittedly said that he could not even begin to explain this lack of evidence. He also said that it was impossible to think that the human eye could have ever evolved because of the many interdependencies that are required in order for it to function. Neither has any scientist since Darwin been able to explain these deficiencies in this belief. Call it what you will but evolution is not fact nor does it qualify to even be considered a theory it is merely a bias propagated by people who do not want to accept the truth. I guarantee you that you will one day know the truth.

My main thing is I don't want to spread things that arent' correct. While I'm sure I make mistakes I try not to talk about something unless I'm relatively sure about it. Having said that I can't explain the science behind how Lucy was used. I would think even if you removed Lucy it wouldn't matter. It's one fossil of one species. Sure it's important because it relates to humans but evoultion isn't just about humans. I haven't responded but was going to say that the sister species he's talking about in taxonomy can be proved through genetics can it not? I would say just the evidence between Chimps and humans would overcome the point he makes about the taxons and chromosomes. Is he not mistaken about them being vastly different in chromosome? This youtube video should demonstrate that shouldn't it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CexojNPz2cU As for mutations I'm baffled how he could think there aren't any human mutations. http://io9.com/10-unusual-genetic-mutations-in-humans-470843733 Should be enough examples shouldn't it? The Darwin quote is a quote mine isn't it? Didn't Darwin expand on this in his last edition and clear up this? IMO this guy doesn't know what theory means and is just regurgitating things he read on AIG. I don't understand much of the background science behind Paleontology or phylogeny but am I way off base here? I try to avoid getting into scientific discussions but someone else took the conversation that direction. Rather than continuing while not being sure I thought I'd ask someone. Thanks for any help.

 

[Inferno]

I can't reply just yet, gotta run off to work in a few minutes. However, the quote function is really quite easy:

[quote="NAME"]TEXT[/quote]

That's it. Don't forget, the "" STAY THERE!

Here's a rather complete list of the BBCode functions.

 

[Inferno]

The first argument of the other person can be summed up as "science is a hoax" or "science is fraud" or "science is a conspiracy". Evolutionary science, of course. But that is not true, because evolution plays an important role in all of biology, in medicine and even geography/geology. For example, C0nc0rdance has a three part series called The Light Of Evolution (what would be lost).
Or I could talk from personal experience. I studied Geography at the University of Vienna. One of our seminars includes biodiversity. Without knowing about evolution, it would make little sense why certain animals live in certain areas of the world but never in others. Or why they look and act the way they do.

The second argument can be summed up as "fraduds exist". While it is true that piltdown man left some scientists at the time very confused, one should not forget that it was scientists themselves who rectified the error. We can then point to numerous other hoaxes and frauds which again were scrutinized and exposed by scientists.
We could go even further and show that hoaxes and frauds exist(ed) in other areas of science, so are they wrong? The Aether, cold fusion and so on are all examples of hoaxes in physics. Do we therefore conclude that physics is all wrong?

The third argument is a confused amalgamation of words with little to no sense behind them, so I have to assume the other person is not fluent in English.
There is one thing to be said about Lucy: While Creationists believe it is the sole fossil of Australopithecus Afarensis, but a quick look on Wikipedia can immediately disprove that. AL 333 is especially interesting, because over 200 specimens were found in one location.
The only reason why Lucy is so famous is because she was the most intact fossil found at the time and provided definite proof of bipedalism. Since then, we have found intact skulls, feet and even mostly complete fossils of children.

The last argument is merely a repetition of the second. I want to address two particular statements as quotes:

This tree states that two sister species lets say Taxon A is a monkey and Taxon B is man. Have a common ancestor to both A and B (monkey and man). The chromosomal make up of A and B are vastly different. Yet science has failed to come up with the many mutations required to link either of these species to a common ancestor. You would have to have several thousand or billions of each mutation to get to the next level of the evolutionary process. Otherwise, you would be seeing mutations of humans walking around all day long. Their fossils would be all around us. Mutations from hands to feet. From quad to biped. From small cranium to large cranium Jaw mutations and the list goes on.

I dealt with that at great length here and others have also explained many things regarding the subject. The single best popular science reference on the subject I am aware of is The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean B. Carroll.

Darwin admittedly said that he could not even begin to explain this lack of evidence. He also said that it was impossible to think that the human eye could have ever evolved because of the many interdependencies that are required in order for it to function. Neither has any scientist since Darwin been able to explain these deficiencies in this belief.

Quote-mined horseshit. Darwin and the eye and Darwin being quotemined.





Now, to your questions:

Having said that I can't explain the science behind how Lucy was used. I would think even if you removed Lucy it wouldn't matter. It's one fossil of one species.

Exactly right. At the time, Lucy was the most complete fossil and it showed bipedal motion. Nowadays, we've got literally hundreds of other A. afarensis fossils. This is what the other person doesn't understand, so it might be good to remind him/her of that.
If you want specifics, ask away.

I haven't responded but was going to say that the sister species he's talking about in taxonomy can be proved through genetics can it not?

Absolutely. Like I said, I've already written a host about that and I'm sure other people here will be able to help you out, many of them better than I can. If you have a specific question, ask away. Otherwise, my debate with dandan is a good primer, I would think.

Is he not mistaken about them being vastly different in chromosome?

Absolutely. Chimps and Humans are roughly 97-98% identical in their genetic matchup.

The Darwin quote is a quote mine isn't it? Didn't Darwin expand on this in his last edition and clear up this?

I linked you to the TalkOrigins site. Though they are already slightly outdated, most of their information is still accurate today. Only when discussing newer ideas (post 2000, say) would you need to look elsewhere.

IMO this guy doesn't know what theory means and is just regurgitating things he read on AIG.

Exactly right.

I don't understand much of the background science behind Paleontology or phylogeny but am I way off base here? I try to avoid getting into scientific discussions but someone else took the conversation that direction. Rather than continuing while not being sure I thought I'd ask someone.

I think you're doing a fairly good job and I applaud you on coming here for more information. My three go-to people here are Rumraket, he_who_is_nobody and Isotelus.
Everything I know, they know more accurately, more in depth and they'll have a broader understanding of the subject matter.

 

[Mugnuts]

Hi Collecemall, could you please give the link to the video you commented on.

I think I have an idea who you might be talking to as I had a little discussion with a pastor that sounded exactly the same on OFNF's discussion board.

 

[Collecemall]

In messing with my youtube account last night I screwed up everything. I had youtube attached to an email account I can't access anymore and was trying to change it. When I did the comments history went bye bye. No big loss. I more wanted to know for myself than to argue with another troll. But I can't find the video now The guys name was Kent H..... can't remember his whole last name but started with an H. It was from something I watched weeks ago. Either something from Ehrman or Carrier if I had to guess but that doesn't narrow it down much. I gave up trying to find it again after 30 mins this afternoon.

There was another guy in the thread that was named Frank Walton I believe. He was a pastor. Or that's what someone said. I've seen him post all over the place on atheist videos so it's probably more likely to have been him that you ran into than Kent. He had a bunch of followers and views where Kent had almost none of either. I originally spent more time replying to Frank about religion but he tended to ignore me and go after the people that didn't know anything at all. I'll keep trying to figure out where I was posting but there were so many posts and so many videos it'll be highly unlikely.


Thank you inferno for the reply. I'm happy to find out I was on the right path. The more I engage these people the more I find they are copying and pasting stuff directly from apologist sources. I suppose that makes sense since nothing in main stream society agrees with them. At least it makes it easy to find the information to refute them when they do it.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I think you're doing a fairly good job and I applaud you on coming here for more information. My three go-to people here are Rumraket, he_who_is_nobody and Isotelus.
Everything I know, they know more accurately, more in depth and they'll have a broader understanding of the subject matter.

Ah gee, thanks. You are swell too.



Just from reading what your creationist has to say about Lucy exposes the creationist’s lack of knowledge. As I pointed out in my blog (and Inferno pointed out above) Lucy is not the only specimen of Australopithecus afarensis. It was not even the first specimen of A. afarensis discovered. Here is a link to a discussion I had with a creationist about hominins. I covered a lot there.

Furthermore, Lucy is not the only transitional species we have; there are at least a half dozen to two dozen (depending on whether you are a splitter or a lumper) for human evolution alone. Beyond that, there are countless transitional species for all of earth’s history.

I do love how you handled Piltdown man, my only suggestion would be to also point out some of the hundreds of frauds created and perpetuated by creationists (my favorite are the Paluxy human tracks, specifiaclly the Delk Print).

 

[Mugnuts]

There seems to be two Frank Walton's. One is a pastor, and the other is some guy with an atheismsucks website that meanders to naughty sites.

I think they are the same person..or more accurately two personalities of one guy. He regurgitates the same refuted arguments and doesn't correct anything when he has been corrected. It's not much use to discuss anything with him. It is good practice though hearing the arguments though as they never seem to go away.

Look up some Duane Gish videos. Then check out the NSCE website. I think they have what you have been looking for.

...my last convo with a pastor involved his idea for proof of the bible's authenticity was that it containing the first recipe for soap. :facepalm:

 

[Visaki]

A few points about the creationist /anti-science lovechild, a.k.a. Piltdown man.

Firstly it didn't fool the entire scientific world. Some of the British scholars took it as being genuin, but Frensh, German and US didn't. There is a real geopolitical reason for this. Scientists of that period were doubtfull of their competition of other nationality and too trusty about their own countrymen. Piltdown skull was in display only for a short time before it was taken down because of the questions and suspicions it raised, and proved fake by scientists a few decades later.

Secondly we still don't know who did the forgery, and why. For all I know it might have been a creationist pastor trying to make fools of the local scientists (which it did to some extent).

For Collecemall: I'm pretty sure I'm not overstepping if I say that you can always ask people to join you here if you want a conversation / debate with better format and less disturbances than in, for example, youtube comments.

 

[Vivre]

@Collecemall and @Mugnuts

The video in question is likely: Richard Dawkins Dies, Then Turns God Into An Atheist by conraddeath123 (James Bond).
I didn't find the quotations yet but a guy named Kent Hollingsworth

~ greets

 

[Mugnuts]

Thank you madam

 

[Collecemall]

@Collecemall and @Mugnuts

The video in question is likely: Richard Dawkins Dies, Then Turns God Into An Atheist by conraddeath123 (James Bond).
I didn't find the quotations yet but a guy named Kent Hollingsworth

~ greets

Not the right video (I've never seen that one) but that's the right name. Although, I'm pretty sure it was a different account for him. His had much more on it when I looked. I'm sure you can get the same arguments out of him I did if you engage him. Just one of millions of people who do the same things.

For Collecemall: I'm pretty sure I'm not overstepping if I say that you can always ask people to join you here if you want a conversation / debate with better format and less disturbances than in, for example, youtube comments.

I generally am not looking to debate. I usually end up opening my mouth to correct something someone else is treating as fact or truth that is clearly not. I know better but can't help myself. I hate seeing people say crap that isn't true. Inevitably on youtube that leads to other Bible hero's coming to the defense of them and dragging me into subjects I wasn't even talking about.

There seems to be two Frank Walton's. One is a pastor, and the other is some guy with an atheismsucks website that meanders to naughty sites.

I think they are the same person..or more accurately two personalities of one guy. He regurgitates the same refuted arguments and doesn't correct anything when he has been corrected. It's not much use to discuss anything with him. It is good practice though hearing the arguments though as they never seem to go away.

Look up some Duane Gish videos. Then check out the NSCE website. I think they have what you have been looking for.

...my last convo with a pastor involved his idea for proof of the bible's authenticity was that it containing the first recipe for soap. :facepalm:

I ran into a guy named Rob Robinson (pastor and author on amazon) on an article a few weeks ago when Robbin Williams died. He made a comment to the effect of Robbin Williams is in hell and knows there's a god now. I didn't know he was a pastor or author when I got into comments with him but we went back and forth with him telling me that he wasn't influenced by anything and that he chose Christ based solely on the evidence that can be found. So I go looking around after spending a good 3-4 hours over a couple of days talking to him and I find his bio on Amazon. He had a near death experience at age 7 and started searching for that god then. Imagine in America that you try to find god and end up a Christian. I mean what are the chances of that? He never would acknowledge that he wasn't truthful about his conversion being about evidence and never could understand that the chances of him selecting something besides Christ in America are almost zero. Nor did he understand why that type of religious segregation based on culture and country would be significant. I quit giving him the benefit of the doubt and decided he was just plain dishonest by the end of it. So I don't put much stock in someone being a pastor.


Thanks to everyone who posted. I'm happy to see that I was on the right path with my replies and thoughts. I still don't know much but it's good to have a resource of people who do.

 

[Mugnuts]

Getting your facts straight is quite time consuming, but worth every moment. Taking the time to learn everything is impossible without the help of an uber-brain, and no one can be or should be expected to know everything.

Taking the simple way of 'Goddidit and that's enough for me' as a position I am personally fine with. But like you (Collecemall), it takes a lot not to stand up and speak out when people try to impose their ignorance or lack of understanding to propagate their way of non-thinking to others.

Finding your own voice on how you speak up is the real challenge. The next is getting others to listen. Even with the many voices here, it's not very easy. It gets pretty hard for me (and I'm sure others) to keep it clean and fair.

That, I am still learning.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Collecemall, if you wanted a good guide to human evolution, a couple of books to read are The Origin Of Our Species by Chris Stringer and/or Evolution The Human Story by Alice Roberts.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say And Why It Matters" is a good overview of the fossil record and how creationist claims like the "Lucy" ones above are at best decades out of date.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say And Why It Matters" is a good overview of the fossil record and how creationist claims like the "Lucy" ones above are at best decades out of date.

Yes, Prothero's book is a excellent one as well - my only reason for not mentioning it is that it deals with all fossils, not just Lucy and other hominins.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Isotelus]

The fact of fraud does not strengthen a theory.

1. Lucy as a common physical example
2. Piltdown man http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/the-scientific-process/piltdown-man-hoax/
3. circuit connections in diagrams of transitional {divergent} phylogeny trees. These connections do not exist in verified specimen: bone or fossil examples
How many do you want?

I didn't see anyone addressing the last point, so I'll just mention that it doesn't make any sense, and I'm putting it delicately. "Circuit connections" is likely some reference to lines showing relationship and common descent, and he seems to be implying transitional and divergent are related terms, which they really aren't, and it's not clear to me how he's using them. Maybe this is minor, but it should be phylogenetic trees. In either case, it's clear they're just throwing out words without knowing what they mean. I would elaborate further, but as I said, it's too unintelligible.

 

[Collecemall]

That's pretty much what all the "arguments" were. I thought maybe I just didn't know something regarding that and possibly that's why the third one didn't make sense to me. His first one didn't make sense either.

Rather than starting another thread I have another question also relating to Creationists. Here in the US we're facing an outbreak of enterovirus in several states. It made me wonder how creationists explain viruses? Clearly if they were designed then god made something specifically to maim or kill us. I may be wrong but aren't there some viruses that attack humans and no other species? It seems like this would be pretty difficult to reconcile with an all loving creator and such. The only argument I could find in a quick google search was that it's like any other animal attacking us. But there isn't another animal that uses us as it's primary food source. Have you guys seen this addressed by them before?

AIG says "What are viruses?" "Hey here's a puppy!"

I'm not kidding.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Rather than starting another thread I have another question also relating to Creationists. Here in the US we're facing an outbreak of enterovirus in several states. It made me wonder how creationists explain viruses? Clearly if they were designed then god made something specifically to maim or kill us. I may be wrong but aren't there some viruses that attack humans and no other species? It seems like this would be pretty difficult to reconcile with an all loving creator and such. The only argument I could find in a quick google search was that it's like any other animal attacking us. But there isn't another animal that uses us as it's primary food source. Have you guys seen this addressed by them before?

I have never seen viruses addressed specifically by young earth creationists, but most likely, they would explain them away as coming about after the “Fall”. Once Adam and Eve ate of the tree and were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, evil was allowed to enter the world. That means, young earth creationists explain it away by claiming Yahweh created a perfect world, but its creation ruined it by allowing sin into it.

 

[Mugnuts]

A pastor told me that AIDS/HIV comes from the human body and that it was creation medicine that would heal it.

They don't really have an answer other that the whole sin and impurity angle when it comes down to it. The fundamentalists I mean of course. Half of the guys at the DI are AIDS denialists as well. All in all it is quite disheartening when you come across that much ignorance and denial to really quite simple premises.

The proposal by Dawkin's regarding faith itself being a virus (more of an analogy though) has more merit than disease and death coming from sin.

 

[Visaki]

Virus', and all other nasty little buggers that are trying to kill us and /or cause general suffering, are the result of the fall of man, ie expulsion from Eden and the general denegration of the Creation because if it. I mean it's really self evident and logical