Why Doesn't Dollard Believe In Evolution

[Sigma88]

Why doesn't Dollard believe in evolution? Does he have any evidence to justify his beliefs in a created earth?

I've watched almost all of his videos, and he gives explanations and evidence/science for most of what he says, but whenever he mentions evolution, he basically moves on a few seconds later and doesn't explain himself. That is out of character for Eric.

I understand that the videos were about electricity and not evolution, but also the creation does sort of (from what I've heard from him) fit with his theory of the universe (so that kind of explains him not covering his comment via explanation in his videos).

I have only read one of Eric's books so far, by the way, so I have not fully covered his thoughts to know what his is fully thinking.

Does anyone know why he believes this?

[pmgriphone]

Creating a cosmos

I have no idea how Eric thinks, but looking at some of the work he has done and mentioned more than once, I would give it the following explanation.

Based on his stories, Eric seems to have created a miniature galaxy/nebula on a few occasions. The cosmic induction generator seems to have a similar goal. Absorbing energy into counter space and creating a miniature galaxy in that way.

If you look at it that way, there is no such thing as evolution. It's a matter of how things are perceived. Things are created instantly in the counter space dimension, by the wave of a hand in this dimension (or in this case by the wave of the cosmic induction generator in this dimension).

Now apply this same principle to our dimension. Assume we are the counter space dimension of another larger dimension. Then in that larger space/dimension, the wave of a hand (or a cosmic induction generator) creates our galaxy in this dimension. For us it might seem like an eternity (or evolution) because our time is so much faster compared to the larger dimension, while in the larger dimension it is simply created in an instant (no evolution needed for that). Only a fraction of a second has transpired in the larger dimension, while millions of years might have passed in the counter space dimension.

Now apply this recursively going up and down in dimensions.... I think you will get the picture of what Buddha Sakyamuni described.

E.g. from the book Zhuan Falun by Li Hongzhi, chapter 2, I quote:

"Sakyamuni also spoke of the theory of three thousand worlds. He stated that, in our universe and our Milky Way, there are three thousand planets with living beings that have physical bodies like our human race. He also stated that there were three thousand such worlds in a grain of sand. A grain of sand is thus just like a universe, with people having wisdom like ours, planets, mountains, and rivers. It sounds quite inconceivable! If so, think about it, everyone: Is there sand in those three thousand worlds? And are there another three thousand worlds in any one of those grains of sand? Then, is there sand in those three thousand worlds? Then, are there still three thousand worlds in any one of those grains of sand? Accordingly, at the level of Tathagata, one is unable to see its end."

And per chapter 8 of that same book:

"At his level, Sakyamuni brought up the theory of three thousand worlds, which is to say that in this Milky Way there are also people with flesh bodies like those of our human race. He also mentioned that a grain of sand contains three thousand worlds, and this agrees with the understanding of our modern physics. What’s the difference between the rotation pattern of electrons orbiting nuclei and that of Earth orbiting the sun? Therefore, Sakyamuni said that at the microscopic level, a grain of sand contains three thousand worlds. It is just like a universe with life and matter within. If it is true, think about it: Is there sand in the world of that grain of sand? Are there three thousand worlds in the sand from that grain of sand? Then is there sand in the three thousand worlds in the sand of the sand? If the search continues on downward, it will be endless. Therefore, even at the level of Tathagata, Sakyamuni made this statement: “It’s immense, without an exterior, and it’s tiny, without an interior.” It is so immense that he could not see the perimeter of the universe, yet so tiny that he could not detect the most microscopic particle from the origin of matter."

My personal understanding... hope it is of some use

[vidbid]

Why doesn't Dollard believe in evolution? Does he have any evidence to justify his beliefs in a created earth?

I've watched almost all of his videos, and he gives explanations and evidence/science for most of what he says, but whenever he mentions evolution, he basically moves on a few seconds later and doesn't explain himself. That is out of character for Eric.

I understand that the videos were about electricity and not evolution, but also the creation does sort of (from what I've heard from him) fit with his theory of the universe (so that kind of explains him not covering his comment via explanation in his videos).

I have only read one of Eric's books so far, by the way, so I have not fully covered his thoughts to know what his is fully thinking.

Does anyone know why he believes this?

I am of the opinion that neither Eric Dollard, nor anybody else, for that matter, needs any evidence to justify his belief in the existence of a created Earth.

I, for one, don't believe in the theory of evolution.

I do believe in the Creator of the Universe.

Belief in creation is a article of faith.

No evidence required.

Faith is required.

Regards,

VIDBID

[citfta]

Very clear evidence of a creator

Hi vidbid,

For a long time I believed the same as you do, that belief in creation was a matter of faith with no evidence. Then I read a very interesting book that gave a large amount of scientific evidence against evolution. I then saw how the evolutions had distorted the facts to fit their evolutionary model.

One of the things evolutionists will shout the loudest is that believing in creation is unscientific. That is very untrue. Did you know that almost all of the founding fathers of our modern fields of science were in fact believers of a creator and most of them strongly denounced the idea of evolution? What you won't hear the evolutionists tell you is that even Charles Darwin admitted there were some serious problems with his theory of evolution.

If you really want to learn about the science of creation just look up creation science on your favorite search engine. One of my favorite sites is the Answers in Genesis site. Those people have even built a creation museum in Florence, Ky. where they give a lot of very clear evidence for a creation model.

Obviously since there are very many books written about creation science I can't go into all the evidence supporting creation here. But I will try to give a little bit with this one short explanation about the fossil record.

The idea of evolution was first expressed about 100 years before Darwin when some college students in France were watching an excavation take place for a new structure of some kind (I don't remember what). As the workers day be day dug lower and lower the students noticed the workers were digging up some fossils from time to time. The students noticed the more developed fossils were closer to the surface and the simpler fossils were near the bottom of the dig. Since the bottom layers had to be older than the upper layers the students came to the conclusion this was a record of how life formed on Earth. Darwin later picked up this idea and tried to prove it with his theory of evolution.

Is there another explanation for why the fossil record shows the simpler life forms at the bottom and the more developed life forms at the top? Yes there is! In virtually every ancient culture around the globe there is a story of a great flood. There is of course the Bible story of Noah and the great flood. How does that fit into the fossil record? Consider this: It starts to rain. It rains so hard and long that the earth starts to flood. What do you do if you see water rising and coming toward you? If you have any sense at all you run. And that is exactly what the animals and humans did. They tried to get away from the flood. Of course there were great landslides and many animals got buried and preserved that way. That is why we sometimes find a large collection of animal fossils in one place. What happens to the small animals? They can't run or crawl as fast as the larger animals so they get buried first. As the flood continued the larger and large animals finally were buried and preserved. That is why the small animals are at the bottom and the larger animals at the top.

The different layers of rock that we find are just the remains of the different layers of mud that were washed over an area as the flood continued. There are even fossil records of plants that extend through several layers of the rock. Scientists have found that there are already fossils that have been formed from the eruption of Mt. St. Helens from when it blew up a few years ago. It does not take millions of years for fossils or rocks to form as we have been taught.

But what about Carbon 14 dating you say. Isn't that how we know how old something is? Carbon 14 dating is about the most inaccurate way to date something ever invented by man. The idea is that carbon 14 has a fixed half-life and since all living creatures have carbon in their systems we can measure the carbon 14 and tell when that animal or plant lived. What the evolutionists won't tell you is the amount of carbon 14 can be severely reduced by the weather conditions the fossil has been exposed to. If the fossil has been exposed to running water most of the carbon 14 will have been leached out of the fossil and thus you will arrive at the conclusion the fossil is much older than it really is.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of information about real science studying the idea of creation as opposed to the myth of evolution.

Respectfully, Carroll

[Sigma88]

I am of the opinion that neither Eric Dollard, nor anybody else, for that matter, needs any evidence to justify his belief in the existence of a created Earth.

I, for one, don't believe in the theory of evolution.

I do believe in the Creator of the Universe.

Belief in creation is a article of faith.

No evidence required.

Faith is required.

Regards,

VIDBID

I am not a believer either. Just looking for answers.

I have no idea how Eric thinks, but looking at some of the work he has done and mentioned more than once, I would give it the following explanation.

Based on his stories, Eric seems to have created a miniature galaxy/nebula on a few occasions. The cosmic induction generator seems to have a similar goal. Absorbing energy into counter space and creating a miniature galaxy in that way.

If you look at it that way, there is no such thing as evolution. It's a matter of how things are perceived. Things are created instantly in the counter space dimension, by the wave of a hand in this dimension (or in this case by the wave of the cosmic induction generator in this dimension).

Now apply this same principle to our dimension. Assume we are the counter space dimension of another larger dimension. Then in that larger space/dimension, the wave of a hand (or a cosmic induction generator) creates our galaxy in this dimension. For us it might seem like an eternity (or evolution) because our time is so much faster compared to the larger dimension, while in the larger dimension it is simply created in an instant (no evolution needed for that). Only a fraction of a second has transpired in the larger dimension, while millions of years might have passed in the counter space dimension.

Now apply this recursively going up and down in dimensions.... I think you will get the picture of what Buddha Sakyamuni described.

E.g. from the book Zhuan Falun by Li Hongzhi, chapter 2, I quote:

"Sakyamuni also spoke of the theory of three thousand worlds. He stated that, in our universe and our Milky Way, there are three thousand planets with living beings that have physical bodies like our human race. He also stated that there were three thousand such worlds in a grain of sand. A grain of sand is thus just like a universe, with people having wisdom like ours, planets, mountains, and rivers. It sounds quite inconceivable! If so, think about it, everyone: Is there sand in those three thousand worlds? And are there another three thousand worlds in any one of those grains of sand? Then, is there sand in those three thousand worlds? Then, are there still three thousand worlds in any one of those grains of sand? Accordingly, at the level of Tathagata, one is unable to see its end."

And per chapter 8 of that same book:

"At his level, Sakyamuni brought up the theory of three thousand worlds, which is to say that in this Milky Way there are also people with flesh bodies like those of our human race. He also mentioned that a grain of sand contains three thousand worlds, and this agrees with the understanding of our modern physics. What’s the difference between the rotation pattern of electrons orbiting nuclei and that of Earth orbiting the sun? Therefore, Sakyamuni said that at the microscopic level, a grain of sand contains three thousand worlds. It is just like a universe with life and matter within. If it is true, think about it: Is there sand in the world of that grain of sand? Are there three thousand worlds in the sand from that grain of sand? Then is there sand in the three thousand worlds in the sand of the sand? If the search continues on downward, it will be endless. Therefore, even at the level of Tathagata, Sakyamuni made this statement: “It’s immense, without an exterior, and it’s tiny, without an interior.” It is so immense that he could not see the perimeter of the universe, yet so tiny that he could not detect the most microscopic particle from the origin of matter."

My personal understanding... hope it is of some use

Interesting breakdown. I'll look into that.

Hi vidbid,

For a long time I believed the same as you do, that belief in creation was a matter of faith with no evidence. Then I read a very interesting book that gave a large amount of scientific evidence against evolution. I then saw how the evolutions had distorted the facts to fit their evolutionary model.

One of the things evolutionists will shout the loudest is that believing in creation is unscientific. That is very untrue. Did you know that almost all of the founding fathers of our modern fields of science were in fact believers of a creator and most of them strongly denounced the idea of evolution? What you won't hear the evolutionists tell you is that even Charles Darwin admitted there were some serious problems with his theory of evolution.

If you really want to learn about the science of creation just look up creation science on your favorite search engine. One of my favorite sites is the Answers in Genesis site. Those people have even built a creation museum in Florence, Ky. where they give a lot of very clear evidence for a creation model.

Obviously since there are very many books written about creation science I can't go into all the evidence supporting creation here. But I will try to give a little bit with this one short explanation about the fossil record.

The idea of evolution was first expressed about 100 years before Darwin when some college students in France were watching an excavation take place for a new structure of some kind (I don't remember what). As the workers day be day dug lower and lower the students noticed the workers were digging up some fossils from time to time. The students noticed the more developed fossils were closer to the surface and the simpler fossils were near the bottom of the dig. Since the bottom layers had to be older than the upper layers the students came to the conclusion this was a record of how life formed on Earth. Darwin later picked up this idea and tried to prove it with his theory of evolution.

Is there another explanation for why the fossil record shows the simpler life forms at the bottom and the more developed life forms at the top? Yes there is! In virtually every ancient culture around the globe there is a story of a great flood. There is of course the Bible story of Noah and the great flood. How does that fit into the fossil record? Consider this: It starts to rain. It rains so hard and long that the earth starts to flood. What do you do if you see water rising and coming toward you? If you have any sense at all you run. And that is exactly what the animals and humans did. They tried to get away from the flood. Of course there were great landslides and many animals got buried and preserved that way. That is why we sometimes find a large collection of animal fossils in one place. What happens to the small animals? They can't run or crawl as fast as the larger animals so they get buried first. As the flood continued the larger and large animals finally were buried and preserved. That is why the small animals are at the bottom and the larger animals at the top.

The different layers of rock that we find are just the remains of the different layers of mud that were washed over an area as the flood continued. There are even fossil records of plants that extend through several layers of the rock. Scientists have found that there are already fossils that have been formed from the eruption of Mt. St. Helens from when it blew up a few years ago. It does not take millions of years for fossils or rocks to form as we have been taught.

But what about Carbon 14 dating you say. Isn't that how we know how old something is? Carbon 14 dating is about the most inaccurate way to date something ever invented by man. The idea is that carbon 14 has a fixed half-life and since all living creatures have carbon in their systems we can measure the carbon 14 and tell when that animal or plant lived. What the evolutionists won't tell you is the amount of carbon 14 can be severely reduced by the weather conditions the fossil has been exposed to. If the fossil has been exposed to running water most of the carbon 14 will have been leached out of the fossil and thus you will arrive at the conclusion the fossil is much older than it really is.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of information about real science studying the idea of creation as opposed to the myth of evolution.

Respectfully, Carroll

The majority of those creation scientist guys have been proven to be liars, manipulating scientific facts to fit what they say so the can keep making money for their orginization. Also, not many of them are close to being intelligent either.

The founding fathers were mostly believers in God due to the fact that Darwins theory did not hold as much weight as it does now. There is much more evidence now than before.

[citfta]

Hi Sigma88,

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? I have personally met Ken Ham the founder of Answers in Genesis and I can assure you he is a very intelligent person.

The majority of those creation scientist guys have been proven to be liars, manipulating scientific facts to fit what they say so the can keep making money for their orginization. Also, not many of them are close to being intelligent either.

The founding fathers were mostly believers in God due to the fact that Darwins theory did not hold as much weight as it does now. There is much more evidence now than before.

Respectfully, Carroll

[Sigma88]

Hi Sigma88,

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? I have personally met Ken Ham the founder of Answers in Genesis and I can assure you he is a very intelligent person.




Respectfully, Carroll

Just google 'Ken Ham fraud', or something along those lines.

[citfta]

Is that the best you can do?

Is that really the best answer you can come up with? So I guess that really means you don't have any evidence to back up your claims creationists are frauds and liars. I thought we could maybe have some real dialogue about the evidence for or against evolution. But it appears you only want to attack those that believe in creation. So I will leave you to your delusions.

Respectfully, Carroll

[Sigma88]

Is that really the best answer you can come up with? So I guess that really means you don't have any evidence to back up your claims creationists are frauds and liars. I thought we could maybe have some real dialogue about the evidence for or against evolution. But it appears you only want to attack those that believe in creation. So I will leave you to your delusions.

Respectfully, Carroll

I've thoroughly researched both sides and ask you to search as I can not be bothered pasting a link. A simple google search will bring more than 3 pages worth of answers. It's really that easy. Not pasting a link does not invalidate anything. Open a tab, search, locate, click, and read. Shouldn't take too long.

Also, I never said ALL creation scientists.

Lastly, I believe in creation. I don't believe in evolution.


A side note: don't acuse me of doing things which I have not (i.e., attacking creation).

[citfta]

OK, maybe we are close to believing in the same thing. Also you should read my posts more carefully. I did not accuse you of attacking creation. I said it appeared you were attacking those that believed in creation. Not quite the same thing. If I have misunderstood your position I apologize. I have been studying the evidence for creation and creation science for over 30 years now and the evidence is stronger than ever that the case for evolution is based more on wishful thinking than actual scientific evidence.

Respectfully, Carroll

[vidbid]

..belief in creation was a matter of faith with no evidence.

Believe how you like.

Bible numerics part 1 - YouTube

Regards,

VIDBID

[vidbid]

With Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew language, (the number of letters multiplied by the product of the letters) divided by (the number of words multiplied by the product of the words) equals 3.1416 x 10 raised to the power of 17.

3.1416 ≈ π

Source: Fundamental Constants? The Mysteries of Pi and e - Chuck Missler - Koinonia House

Regards,

VIDBID

[dward]

I don't think anyone's ever asked this question before. I can't and won't answer for Eric but the more research I do the more I think that it's more a matter of perspective than anything else.

The thing that turns me off to evolution is all the social engineering that came from it. It's a bit like Einstein in my mind. His work grew out of earlier theories but it was the one to grab hold of the public's imagination and it changed our culture. It's interesting to note that theories such as Darwin's or Einsteins don't often do much in science(it becomes a mere presumption, a collective belief, that also needs no real proof). Darwin's theory had more influence in culture than in science(it's become somewhat of a catchall in science), as has Einstein's work. no one can really point to useable technology from Einstein(and one would think that a physicist's work would have application...) and with Darwin there's also little to point too except the disclaimer geneticists, anthropologists, et al. put before their findings.
Both Darwin and Einstein were by their own words trying to find God. So both come out of religious notions. so Whats new here?

I believe in an instantaneous creation, that every niche has an organism to fill it, even in the mineral and etheric realms. My assumption is that all is life and nothing is death, that the death of one organism is the life of another so that there is no vacuum or gap for a non living entity to be. This has from my childhood even before the forced indoctrination i suffered by organized religion been my operating principle. I have found proof upon proof for this assumption in many people's work including Wilhelm Reich's work, and others such as Eric's electrical work.

I think it's perfectly logical to not believe in a Darwinian or Einsteinien existence. After all Darwin + Einstein/modernism = our postmodern malaise

[dR-Green]

Well, it figures that this is the most popular thread on the EPD forum doesn't it.

I can't answer on Eric's behalf, but I will say that just because someone doesn't believe one thing, it doesn't mean that they are bound to believe its supposed opposite.

In the words of Walter Russell, this is a creating universe, not a created one.

If you don't believe the theory of evolution as it is proposed, then you must be a creationist.

If you don't vote left wing, then you must have voted right wing.

If you think that all politicians are corrupt, then you must be an anarchist.

Poppycock!

[Sigma88]

Well, it figures that this is the most popular thread on the EPD forum doesn't it.

I can't answer on Eric's behalf, but I will say that just because someone doesn't believe one thing, it doesn't mean that they are bound to believe its supposed opposite.

In the words of Walter Russell, this is a creating universe, not a created one.

If you don't believe the theory of evolution as it is proposed, then you must be a creationist.

If you don't vote left wing, then you must have voted right wing.

If you think that all politicians are corrupt, then you must be an anarchist.

Poppycock!

I do believe that Dollard has said quite clearly that he does not believe in a religious creation (a creation having nothing to do with any particular religion, with that belief being influenced by no religion). Logically, of course, he does believe in some kind of creator (of the macro, not micro kind).

I believe his studies have led him down this path to this conclusion. I believe he may know some stuff which influences this belief which is not known within the public domain.

Maybe we could get Dollard to reply in this thread as to what's going on?