Why Doesn't Dollard Believe In Evolution

[Stephen Brown]

Great Post. Thanks.

Aaron. Did you post a link to some pictures referencing Eric's cosmos in a bottle?

"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."

I saw them, didn't bookmark them and have been looking for them ever since.
Did you remove the post or have I just been searching using the wrong words?
Thanks in advance.
Stephen

[Aaron]

cosmic induction generator

Aaron. Did you post a link to some pictures referencing Eric's cosmos in a bottle?

"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."

I saw them, didn't bookmark them and have been looking for them ever since.
Did you remove the post or have I just been searching using the wrong words?
Thanks in advance.
Stephen

Stephen, just search "comsic induction generator" in google in an images search. You'll see the bulbs. The galaxy one was not photographed and happened once to my understanding. The plasma shapes you see are later on. They're in the video I posted with Eric's recent Q & A session.

[TheoriaApophasis]

My quip was merely reflecting the fact that your post is nearly word for word the Wikipedia definition of emanationsim.

[Bob Smith]

I don't know why Eric doesn't believe in evolution. But I can express my view, as to why I don't believe in Darwinistic evolution, and perhaps there may be something in common with EPD's view there.

Darwin's evolution theory is just that - a theory, just like Einstein's theory of special relativity is just that - a theory. I don't buy Darwin's theory of evolution for the following reasons:

- I see no evidence for one species evolving into another species, even in fossil records, and there are many who argue the same. One could organize fossils and creatures along lines of seeming progressive features which find their supposed culmination of development in homo sapiens, to point to successive evolutionary leaps. But in my mind this is a framework that is extrinsically imposed for its own purposes, and it bypasses the notion that one species cannot evolve into another.

- Darwin's theory of evolution inviariably is linked to eugenics, which received great impetus in Western culture with the work of Darwin's cousin Sir Francis Galton. Interesting how Galton's work on eugenics and Darwin's theory of evolution fit hand in glove. We find eugenics often linked in spoken and unspoken ways in certain ideologies which pervade economics, sociology, ethics and medical research/treatment.

- Man and woman are the masterpieces of the natural order. When exercised to their fullest noble potential, human intellect and free will are unsurpassed by any other creature. There is no corporeal being on this earth whose dignity and ability to know and to consciously deliberate on and choose what is good equals that of the human person. This seems to be a consistent hallmark of all the world's great cultures, with the exception of the most despotic and inhuman (such as Communism and military dictatorships), which are not really great cultures at all. Societies generally construct their laws to ensure the protection of the common good, which rests on safeguarding the supreme worth of every individual within that society. Once this supreme worth becomes more important for some than others (which can be a form of eugenics), that society/culture begins its decline. It is easier to dispense with individuals if we think they are less evolved, less human or simply another animal (though perhaps higher evolved than others).

I wonder if EPD shares in some of these, which in my view appeal to reason.

M 2 cents.
Bob

[wayne.ct]

Anyone identify as a fallibleist?

I probably spelled that wrong but I recently listened to an introductory lecture on philosophy and the lecturer stated that he is/was a committed fallible-ist. So committed was he, so he said, that he was uncertain he even existed, etc. To this listener the whole lecture was understandable while listening but quite forgettable. I'm glad I was not paying big bucks to listen to it for academic credit.

Theoria A. can feel free to correct me, but I confess my willingness to continue in the posture of student, a humble student at that. I identify with being fallible.

With that said, I read this thread because the C/E debate is something of a hobby with me. I prefer to see evidence laid out in a logical manner and interpretations posed as hypothetical and not as dogmatic.

The first post of this thread appeared to me to be an attack on EPD because he would not CONFESS himself to be a committed evolutionist. I find that to be crude and harsh. It sounds like a modern atheist, to use TA's explanation. I much prefer to read of some purported evidence, even if it is unbelievable and poorly stated. Mere claims of evidence are superior to the ad hominem attacks of the ignorant shallow thinkers. I did the search suggested, i.e. Ken Hamm fraud, or whatever, and read the top three results. Hamm may be an idiot, but he garnered the air time with a famous evolutionist. Bill Nye obviously enjoyed taking advantage of a creationist buffoon.

The Biblical literalists and fundamentalists genuinely discredit the cause of fiat creationism by their use of "the book". To my way of thinking the evidence in the geology points to a world-wide catastrophe that exceeds anything seen in the last 3,000 years. Anything older than that needs to be handled with a healthy measure of skepticism.

Bottom line for me?

1. What EPD thinks about creation, evolution, Lutherans or whatever has nothing to do with what he can or may offer to the physical experimenter and alternate energy enthusiast. It should not matter.

2. The creation model has a large amount of evidence to speak for it.

3. Evolutionists, on the main, have more faith in their model than run-of-the-mill Christians have in their God.

[dR-Green]

An acorn is bound to unfold to become an oak tree.

The unexpressed idea of the whole oak tree in all its incalculable expressed complexity is contained as One Whole Idea within its acorn seed, and so an oak tree it will invariably become within the dimension of time; It did not evolve to become the oak tree, it unfolded. The invisible unexpressed idea within the seed simply became expressed through unfolding form, and therefore visible. And so likewise all life unfolds from the cosmic/universal seed; Life is not an accident, it is inevitable. Cause is One, effect is expressed through infinitely incalculable complexity of forms.