https://michaelteachings.com/channeling/ Wed, 22 Apr 2026 21:41:23 +0000 science - Michael Teachings Channeling - Q & A en https://michaelteachings.com/channeling/discussion/327/atomic-theory Tue, 28 May 2013 21:19:22 +0000 Science ubiquitous 327@/channeling/discussions Someone asked if the atomic theory/physical material information is relevant to human life. Is what physical materials are composed of important to the understanding of what life is all about?

ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT IT GIVES THE PERSONALITY SOME UNDERSTANDING OF ITS MILIEU AND THE FACT THAT THE PERSONALITY CAN BE SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED CHEMICALLY. INSOFAR AS SPIRITUALITY IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO RELATION. THE ONLY CONNECTION THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE MADE IS THAT ALL THINGS PHYSICAL UNDERGO THE SAME CYCLIC EVOLUTION, AS DO ALL THINGS SPIRITUAL — IN OTHER WORDS, AN UPWARD EVOLUTION. THE ATOMIC TABLE SHOWS THE SAME UPWARD EVOLUTION AS DO THE COSMOS THEMSELVES [sic]. STARS ON THE MAIN SEQUENCE ARE UNDERGOING A PHYSICAL EVOLUTION THAT RESEMBLES THAT UNDERGONE BY ALL SENTIENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE.

SOURCE: Michael Teachings Transcripts]]> https://michaelteachings.com/channeling/discussion/277/big-bang-theory Mon, 27 May 2013 00:31:28 +0000 Science ubiquitous 277@/channeling/discussions My question is about Grand Cycles. Does the Big Bang that started the Universe correlate to the start of a Grand Cycle? Or doe Grand Cycles occur several times within the lifespan of a Universe? For instance, if one has 12 previous Grand Cycles were they in this Universe, 12 previous universes, or some in this one and some in prior universes?

MICHAEL: The scientific label Big Bang as it is used to describe the beginnings of the Universe is useful in that human fragments tend to think in linear terms and so there has to be a Beginning. In actuality, creation is more like a moebus ribbon, bending around until it meets itself coming back. This is not easy to envision or understand. Some of your science fiction authors have had a glimmering of what this means and have attempted to describe it in words. With various degrees of success.

To answer the question, No, the Big Bang is not the beginning of a Grand Cycle. There have been a number of Grand Cycles for this creation and this creation is only one of billions. However, for fragments in this creation, their experience of cycles will be enveloped in their universe. IT is part of the orderliness of creation that universes do not interact.

Channeled by Nancy Gordon
]]> https://michaelteachings.com/channeling/discussion/172/theory-of-evolution Tue, 21 May 2013 02:06:58 +0000 Early Man ubiquitous 172@/channeling/discussions How accurate is the theory of evolution as man has defined it. Is it in keeping with the reality of species development on earth? How does the idea of 'intelligent design' fit in?

MICHAEL: Let us look at the last question first. All creation is intelligent. There is no grain of cosmic dust nor of the minutest cell that is not intelligent. Therefore the design is by its nature intelligent. Now, is there a divine being who has drawn up the blueprints for all of this creation? Not in the way that your scriptures tend to picture it. All of what you call creation comes from one source, the Tao. But the Tao does not create. The Tao allows energy to 'escape', to be cast from IT in its quest for the experience of parting with it. It is this energy that ultimately 'creates', that sets the intelligent patterns for matter to follow. If you wish to call this 'intelligent design', you may do so. Now as for the theory of evolution as understood and taught by your scientists, this is as near to the truth of things as most fragments' minds can encompass. The species that evolved on this planet to the point that it could be ensouled had to have certain physical qualifications: among them was the opposable thumb and a palate and larynx for speech. You may not think that the opposable thumb is primary to your humanity, but we suggest that you try to do the most ordinary gesture without being able to bring your four fingers together with your thumb. Upright gait was also part of the requirement for ensoulment. So in a manner of speaking, there is no argument between the Darwinists and our teachings. It is just that the theory of Darwin was not informed by the considerations that you and we understand. Ensoulment was accomplished some 60,000 years ago. The area that cannot be ascertained by science is the assistance that the evolving species had from the universe. When you have heard that your planet was 'seeded' by star peoples you imagine that humanity as it exists today was brought fully formed from a distant planet and introduced here among the animals that already inhabited it. But this is a misunderstanding of the 'seeding' process. It is much more usual that a promising form be identified and then 'helped along' in its evolution, a process that takes generations, by the way. The physical apparatus must exist in at least incipient form. You cannot make omelets without breaking eggs. If the species that became human had not had the potential for speech, for instance, a different vehicle would have had to be found.

CHANNELED BY: Nancy Gordon


Someone made the statement that he had considered physical evolution to be finished now, or that it was going backwards. Is it?

DEFINITELY THE ADAPTATIONS CONTINUE. IF YOU WISH TO VERIFY THIS, PIT YOUR OWN STAMINA AGAINST THAT OF SOME HISTORICAL CHARACTERS WHO WALKED THOUSANDS OF MILES OVER MOUNTAINS AND DESERTS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF LIFE AND GREW STRONGER FROM THE EXPERIENCE.

SOURCE: Michael Teachings Transcripts]]> en