Creationists: Here's your chance

[painted wolf]

I see it as a process of life overcoming resistance.As we become more resistant to disease we actually create new disease through the resistance as it mutates. We are not keeping up with new diseases but only causing them to mutate in spite of what big pharma would like the world to believe. We have more control in nature then other animals as we have more ability to become resistant or not to the energy force in nature through our will where animals are more distinctive to it.
This energy force seems to be getting faster and faster and humans are actually controlled by it even though we have the ability to manipulate it. The pace of life is getting ridiculously fast.
Where we used to engage in one conversation at a time transferring information we now engage in many conversations through Internet and jump from thought to thought.

That is life... but I don't think it's any faster today than it was long ago. At least not from a nature standpoint... our personal lives are much faster and cluttered here in the digital world.
That is one reason I like to get away for a few weeks or so... no electricity and what-not.

Are humans in control or are they trying to keep up?

That is one of the big questions isn't it. From an evolutionary standpoint there is the the "Red Queen Hypothesis"... essentially we and our parasites (viruses and so on) are always trying to stay one step ahead of the other... running and running as fast as we can, just to stay in one place.

wa:do

 

[Walkntune]

Are humans in control or are they trying to keep up?

I guess my point in saying this is that we may be able to find out more about the universe and how it operates by looking inside ourselves then looking outside at the universe.As being part of the universe the same force that is driving us is driving all of creation. We may understand it more by how we relate to it then by seeing its effects on the rest of the universe.I believe as we understand what drives and compels us we will understand the universe.I think looking outwards is a backwards direction at getting to the truth and by looking at our own beingness we will understand what compels us and why and give us great understanding to the mysteries of creation.
Unfortunately this would be a deep intuitive process and the ego wants to believe that the answers will be found and understood in the mind.

 

[RedOne77]

RedOne77
If they can’t agree on HOW species change, how then do they know the species change into other species? Also if they don’t know exactly what path the particular group went through, how then do they know it went through a particular path to change at all? If they can’t agree on these things, why do they agree that evolution is correct? I am hearing that evolution is a DOGMA here. I’m not getting it?

We observe species changing into other species. It is a fact that they do. Even before Darwin scientists knew that species changed, they just didn't have a good understanding of how they changed. People had different ideas, some good some bad. The most famous is probably Lamarckian evolution. However, it was largely discredited when scientists had a better grasp on genetics and heredity.

Ok, do YOU know the evidence at a professional level? Do you understand it? If so, I want to hold on to talking to you. I got lots more questions.

I don't, yet. I'm going to school to learn it at the professional level, but I'll only be in my second year this fall, nothing special. Painted Wolf has a BA in biology if I'm not mistaken, and she knows this stuff a lot better than I do.

What I mean is, if it REMAINS a theory, it’s not airtight solid, since it’s a theory and not a fact. A fact is airtight solid.

Theories are as high as you can go in science. A theory will never change into a fact and cease to be a theory. Also, a fact isn't airtight solid like that. Nothing in science is airtight solid, everything is up for examination, analysis and if warranted, much criticism.

Ok, then in other words it’s not airtight solid then. Facts are perfect.

Facts aren't perfect. They are simply verified observations and have little reason, usually no sane reason, to doubt. Even if we saw within one life a population of fish evolve into humans would the theory of evolution cease to be a theory and become a fact instead. Science just doesn't operate like that.

I see what you’re saying, but I think gravity is slightly different then macro evolution and cosmic evolution. Gravity is in the PRESENT (although still not SEEN tangibly) and macro evolution is NOT demonstrated presently, while gravity IS. You see what I am getting at?

While we can't see gravity, we can see its effects and know that it is there. For the longest time we couldn't see electrons, yet all reason and experimentation told scientists that they have to exist. Evolution is in somewhat the same situation. While we have never witnessed in a single life time a reptile evolve into a mammal, all evidence tells us that this is what must have happened. Also, we see populations change over time all the time, this is in the present, we literally see evolution happening before our eyes.

Ok, yes pard me, I do see that and I agree to that. The design theory and the evolution theory can BOTH be correct, that is true. God could be designing VERY SLOWLY, so, yea, that could very well be true (I don’t believe it is, but yea, I see what you’re saying, that both theories can be true, yes).

I don't think that idea is correct either. However, the design 'theory' isn't really a scientific theory, it is more of a religious idea trying to get by as science. On the other hand, I don't think that it is contradictory to believe that God can tweak mutations or something to indirectly design things through evolution - however such an idea is not part of the design 'theory' or science.

Intelligent design theory does not RANDOMELY come up with a explanation of the facts. They explain it very carefully with lots of reasons behind what they argue for.

They have come up with ideas like "irreducibly complex systems", sometimes called "IC", but none of it can stand up to scientific scrutiny. Are you familiar with the "Dover Trial"?

Intelligent design makes predictions.

Do you know of any examples?

Predicting that a fish like amphibian is in a certain layer is not predicting evolution, it’s predicting that you will find a fish like amphibian in a certain layer. How does this predict evolution? Also is there any FAILED predictions of evolution?

Based on the theory of evolution, you can predict what you will find in a particular layer. That is a testable prediction, and one used very frequently in paleontology, and so far it has yet to falsify evolution.

I'm sure people have predicted wrong things, but so far nothing has disproved evolution.

 

[RedOne77]

I don’t dispute they have data, but that data is interpreted. It’s the interpretation that I question, not the data.

So how does one interpret data to fit something other than the ToE?

There is only one other alternative. Either nothing/chance/time did it, or God did it, or it was always here, or it made itself, or it’s not really here. There is no other views out there, this covers all angles. If nothing/chance/time is disproven, the only other best alternative is God did it.

You say that there is only "one" alternative, yet mention several alternatives. What if the truth is something we have yet to even ponder about? Just disproving evolution doesn't validate creationism/ID. Science has never advanced by putting God into the equation of a scientific idea.

Ok, good, you admitted that they cannot say or know that the theory of evolution is the “TRUTH”.

Ok, you’re losing me now, HOW is the earth NOT proven to be round?

Nothing in science is claimed as "truth" or "proven". There is always an amount of uncertainty because we simply do not know what will be discovered in the future. What science can say, is that all scientific evidence suggests that the Earth is round and that there is no reason to suspect otherwise, same with the theory of evolution.

It obeys it’s own laws of nature.

Yet science cannot detect these laws, run experiments on them, test them out, understand them or know what they are (if it exists).

Well, in that case, I think science should be reformed. Because to rule out or not study or not make a means to DETECT the spirit realm, is CLOSED minded. You may say they have no way to detect it, how do you know they can’t FIND a way to detect it?

It's not closed minded for science, it is science understanding its own limitations in what it can attempt to explain and pontificate on. Not everything is science, that's okay, most things aren't. And luckily, most people's philosophy doesn't stop with just science.

Why? They would never find it if they RULE the possibility out, but if they are OPEN to study or find it, then it’s possible they will find it. Right?

As Autodidact said, science simply doesn't deal with this type of thinking; however religion and some philosophy does.

Learning about the natural world is good, I am not against it. What I am against is if science RULES OUT a spirit world. I am also against if they REFUSE to STUDY the spirit world even if they don’t RULE one out. I think they should not rule it out and I think they should attempt to study it.

Science doesn't rule out the spirit world, it simply ignores it. If you want to study the spirit world, you would have to come up with a different methodology than science.

Hmm, it depends on how you define spiritual. It’s mostly concerned with a RIGHT relationship with God and ourselves and others to put it more closer to what it’s really more about then anything. Now if you want to call that spiritual, fine. But if you mean spiritual as in the SPIRIT WORLD, ummm, no, it’s not more concerned about that then the natural world.

It's not concerned in the sense that it makes no scientific claims about the natural world.

Wow, ok, I need to recover myself from hearing that one. HOW does genesis 1 and 2 not make ANY claims about the physical world? That’s the first I heard this one. I gauss “created the HEAVENS and the EARTH” is not referring to the physical earth and heavens I suppose, yes no?

I guess it would be more accurate to say that Genesis makes no scientific claims about the natural world. All the talk about God creating the Sun, moon, stars, Earth, plants etc. is not about the physical creation of such things, the meaning behind it is much deeper and richer than a plain old history lesson.

How does genesis 1 and 2 not make any claims about the physical universe? I really don’t understand how anyone can say that.

I should have said no scientific claims about the physical universe. Genesis 1 and 2 does teach that God created the universe and sustains it without us having to go through blood sacrifices and such. But none of that can be scientifically examined.

 

[RedOne77]

Did it EVER dawn on scientists or authorities in science that perhaps to not rule out the spirit world and study it that they could “better the quality of life through understanding the” spirit world? Think of what you could do by understanding and manipulating things in the spirit world? (not to be confused with manipulating God either, that’s not what I am talking about).

I suppose one could attempt to study the spiritual world, but it just wouldn't be science, that is left to the likes of philosophers of clergy. It is about knowing and understanding the limitations of methodologies.

Yea, it is falsifiable if they find ways to detect it and then use them to see if it’s there or not. Also the way I keep hearing about evolution, it sounds to me that THAT theory is not falsifiable. If I am wrong, how is evolution falsifiable?

Trying to use science to detect the supernatural is like using a thermometer to read someones mind.

Evolution is falsifiable; a common answer you'll hear among evolutionists is if you can find fossil bunnies in the Cambrian (ruffly 500 million years ago) rock you'll disprove evolution. Another one is finding dinosaur bones mixed in with human bones. These ideas are from something called "out of place fossils". If you can find a fossil of an organism in a time period where it simply couldn't have lived based on evolutionary theory, or a bunch of organisms that shouldn't have lived together in the same rock, then evolution is in trouble.

I see what the pope was getting at, but yea God is not proven, but the theory of the big bang implies a God since it shows forth a first cause.

You could look at it that way, but really it doesn't talk about a first cause. The big bang could have been caused by a number of natural phenomena.

Also you said “God/scripture belong in the supernatural and science belongs in the natural. Again, above you said that God OWNS both the natural and spirit world. But here, it sounds like your saying that science owns the natural and God owns the spirit world. Again, no, God owns both, science owns NONE. So how does God BELONG ONLY to the spirit realm? For some reason I get the impression your putting God in a box. Yes, no?

Science puts God in a box by being silent on the issue, not letting it interfere with the methodology. Science is simply a method to understand the natural world, and to mix and match science and religion is a very bad idea, it makes both bad theology and bad science.

Yea but why be silent on the issue?

The same reason music theory is silent on how to study engineering.

Ok, that’s good, but why remain silent on the issue?

You cannot test the supernatural, therefore it is not a part of scientific inquiry.

Can cause hallucinations? How do you know the chemicals CAN cause this?

Because scientists understand how the binding of chemicals work on the brain.

Also you then said opposite to your former statement saying it doesn’t have to? So first you said it can, and then you say the chemicals may not cause hallucinations? Huh? Am I missing something?

Just because something can happen doesn't mean that it will happen.

How many minutes was he dead? Also there can be other factors why he did not experience anything, one main factor could be is his spirit did not YET leave his body.

He was dead for around 6 minutes. The idea that his spirit did not yet leave his body is fine as an opinion, but you cannot test it, that it why you cannot conduct science on the supernatural.

Yea they will say that, but how do they know this? Or better yet, WHY do they say this?

They feel it is the only reasonable explanation. There is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise.

Give me an example of the difference between a natural based out of body experience near death and a REAL one near death?

That is all in the opinion of the person. And to make it even more complicated, I suspect that even when people believe that they have been touched by God, they really have not. I know it isn't the most fun thing to think about, especially when talking about death, but you can't rule it out.

How does God reach out and change their life through the NATURAL experience? Also when you say natural, do you mean hallucination by the way?

Yes, when I say natural I mean a naturally induced hallucination. The hallucination itself may be because of a chemical, but maybe God uses this as an opportunity to reach out to people and change their lives. I remember reading a paper a long time ago where someone had a near death experience. This guy said that he used to be really mean to people, being very nasty with what he said. The near death experience that he had was him seeing and feeling what these people saw and felt when he was beating them up verbally. After that experience he changed his life around. With an experience like that, I'd be inclined to say that God had a hand in it, but that is my opinion. Autodidact would have a different opinion, but neither can be verified.

How is it impossible? Also why is near death experiences convincing to you but not out of body experiences?

No one has really died and come back to tell us about it (barring religious ascertains). How would you verify 'the light at the end of the tunnel' for example?

I don't put much weight in out of body experiences because there is absolutely nothing scientific that suggests that such a thing exists.

Were they ASKED to LOOK FOR these items in the operating room before they went in? If no, then why would they focus on that in order to remember it? Also what are they wrong about with the doctors?

The patient would be convinced that the doctor said or did X when in fact, they did not. I know that rooms, at least they used to, have odd items laying around that are specifically for people to notice them when they have an out of body experience. Many times, these people will say that everything is clear and have an excellent memory of their experience, yet fail to accurately describe what was going on while they were under.

 

[painted wolf]

I guess my point in saying this is that we may be able to find out more about the universe and how it operates by looking inside ourselves then looking outside at the universe.

I agree we can learn a great deal this way... but it's not science it's religion and philosophy.
The two look at different questions and have different methods of inquiry.

As being part of the universe the same force that is driving us is driving all of creation. We may understand it more by how we relate to it then by seeing its effects on the rest of the universe.

Agreed... this is what I do with my religious faith.
I use science to understand how I physically operate and how I fit into the world ecologically and how I am inheritor of a legacy stretching back to the first living things all those billions of years ago... and to hopefully find ways to keep this world an ecologically sound place for my descendants to continue that legacy for billions of years to come.

I believe as we understand what drives and compels us we will understand the universe.

Agreed... but I think that this is an area where biology and philosophy/religion can inform one another. Look at the progress we have made already... we no longer blame demons for mental illness for example.

I think looking outwards is a backwards direction at getting to the truth and by looking at our own beingness we will understand what compels us and why and give us great understanding to the mysteries of creation.

Again, I agree... but I find the natural causes of our beginnings to be just as powerful and beautiful as any creation myth... because we can see the physical evidence of our billions of years long history.
Our creation stories tell us as people/cultures where we come from, what our values and hopes for the future are... and in this they are vital and wonderful. But I don't think they should be made science any more than I think faith healing should be in hospitals.
While I accept Creator (god) as a matter of faith, I know I can't put Creator under a microscope and make religion scientific... and I'm glad for that. While I get much wonder and inspiration from science, I don't want to worship something mundane.

Ultimately while we know how we physically evolved, that does not rule out the role of Creator in guiding or initiating the process... but we can't scientifically insert God/Creator because we can't scientifically demonstrate/examine God/Creator.

Unfortunately this would be a deep intuitive process and the ego wants to believe that the answers will be found and understood in the mind.

Again, this is a struggle for religion and philosophy. Science only deals with what can be evidenced outside the mind.

wa:do

 

[David M]

Ok, just telling me that your professors, the one’s who happen to be Christians don’t accept ID as science and then denying that this is a oxy moron does not tell me WHY it’s not a oxy moron.

Because ID is not testable or falsifiable and makes no predictions, that means it is not science. All possible results are valid under ID because the response is "that is how the designer did it", no mechanisms have been put forward as to how design happens because the only answer is just "its an intelligent designer". Finally there is no evidence to support design because every single thing pointed to is perfectly achievable under mechanisms that do not require the existence of a designer.

The final nail in the coffin of the arguments of the current proponents of ID as a science is that the designer is God. Every question is answered by "God did it".

Also if they don’t accept ID why do they believe in God then? Also how can they say they believe in certain sections of the bible that talk about design? Don’t they believe God designed this universe? To be a Christian you have to believe that, that part should be OBVIOUS.

They accept God and evolution and deny ID because there is nothing in science that shows that God does not exist, only that the direct intervention of God is not required to explain the diversity of life. The evidence is piling up that the direct intervention of God is also not required to explain the origin of life.

Its only one interpretation of the the bible (and a flawed literal one) that requires that God specifically and individually created every form of life, others only require that the development and diversification of life is happening through natural means according to God's plans.

Adressing this "Also is there any FAILED predictions of evolution?" The answer is no, if there had been failed predictions this evidence would have overturned ToE.

There have been many cases where there could have been, and still could be, failed preditions. The fossil rabbit in the pre-cambrian would be a failed prediction, such a simple discovery would be evidence that ToE is incorrect.

DNA could have falsified ToE. ToE predicts that there has to be a mechanism within cells that allows the inheritance of traits and that the mechanism must be imperfect. If DNA was a perfect replicator ToE would be falsified, if germ-line DNA was changed by the living beings experiences then what Darwin proposed would need to be thrown out of the window and we would be looking at something akin to what Lamarck proposed.

If all life did not use the same DNA structure common descent, and therefore ToE, would be falsified. If genes did not show the same patterns of inheritance as morphology common descent, and therefore ToE, would be falsified. If natural selection could not be confirmed scientifally ToE would be falsified.

ToE has passed many potential falsifications of its predictions in the last 150 years.

 

[Walkntune]

I agree we can learn a great deal this way... but it's not science it's religion and philosophy.
The two look at different questions and have different methods of inquiry.

Agreed... this is what I do with my religious faith.
I use science to understand how I physically operate and how I fit into the world ecologically and how I am inheritor of a legacy stretching back to the first living things all those billions of years ago... and to hopefully find ways to keep this world an ecologically sound place for my descendants to continue that legacy for billions of years to come.

Agreed... but I think that this is an area where biology and philosophy/religion can inform one another. Look at the progress we have made already... we no longer blame demons for mental illness for example.

Again, I agree... but I find the natural causes of our beginnings to be just as powerful and beautiful as any creation myth... because we can see the physical evidence of our billions of years long history.
Our creation stories tell us as people/cultures where we come from, what our values and hopes for the future are... and in this they are vital and wonderful. But I don't think they should be made science any more than I think faith healing should be in hospitals.
While I accept Creator (god) as a matter of faith, I know I can't put Creator under a microscope and make religion scientific... and I'm glad for that. While I get much wonder and inspiration from science, I don't want to worship something mundane.

Ultimately while we know how we physically evolved, that does not rule out the role of Creator in guiding or initiating the process... but we can't scientifically insert God/Creator because we can't scientifically demonstrate/examine God/Creator.

Again, this is a struggle for religion and philosophy. Science only deals with what can be evidenced outside the mind.

wa:do

Thanks for the very respectful insight. I don't toss out the scientific method but i just don't stand on it as fact either as I am open to understanding through thought and intuition.
Examples I disagree with are like when you mention mental illness.
Science claims it is a chemical imbalance in the brain that is the cause. I see the imbalance as a result.If someone becomes a resistance to their fears and feelings, they become out of balance with nature and this resistance causes the body to go out of balance.By letting go of our resistance the body can balance itself back out and so can any chemical imbalances(which is a symptom). To make the symptom the problem only complicates the healing as we keep pruning the branches but never digging at the root.
It is the same as faith healing in hospitals. If faith makes you become less resistant to your illness(which it does) then the body can use its energy to heal the sickness instead of expending so much energy fighting the resistance we hold on to.
Kind of like trying to save a person from drowning who is in a panic.
There is a force of energy in creation and if we would learn to harness this energy instead of denying it and becoming an enemy and a resistance to nature,mankind would propel forward at great distances and find a true everlasting peace.

 

[painted wolf]

Science claims it is a chemical imbalance in the brain that is the cause. I see the imbalance as a result.If someone becomes a resistance to their fears and feelings, they become out of balance with nature and this resistance causes the body to go out of balance.By letting go of our resistance the body can balance itself back out and so can any chemical imbalances(which is a symptom). To make the symptom the problem only complicates the healing as we keep pruning the branches but never digging at the root.

But that imballance is not the result of demons is it? Do you need an exorcist to heal a schizophrenic or a psychiatrist?

It is the same as faith healing in hospitals. If faith makes you become less resistant to your illness(which it does) then the body can use its energy to heal the sickness instead of expending so much energy fighting the resistance we hold on to.

Sadly, faith healing has a record of killing the patients more than healing them...
Mind you I'm not saying approaching illness with a spiritual mindset is wrong... I think that spirituality can have a great psychological benefit to the healing process. But I don't think that prayer alone can cure someone with Plague.

There is a force of energy in creation and if we would learn to harness this energy instead of denying it and becoming an enemy and a resistance to nature,mankind would propel forward at great distances and find a true everlasting peace.

I personally am for finding the balance between the two and understanding which is good for it's purpose.

wa:do

 

[Walkntune]

But that imballance is not the result of demons is it? Do you need an exorcist to heal a schizophrenic or a psychiatrist?

Demons,negative energy, doesn't really matter the word choice to describe the effect. Yes I believe negative energy can get trapped in our bodies. I believe we have the ability to change the energy in our body from kinetic to potential energy. Those who go around in a kinetic state our more likely to allow negative energy in. Those who know how to stay in potential state longer(will power) learn how to build up a strong resistance to negativity and can become quite charismatic and positive with their aura.They have the greater ability to choose when they become kinetic instead of being dictated by resistance and negative emotions.

 

[painted wolf]

So then a schizophrenic just needs to be positive and not negative?

Just as a side note.... kinetic energy is what makes our bodies work... potential energy is stored in our bodies as fat. (I have a fair amount of potential energy squirreled away )
Unless you are using the terms in a non-scientific way?

wa:do

 

[Jollybear]

David_M

I have one simple question for you. Do you believe God created and designed THIS universe? Yes or no?

 

[Walkntune]

So then a schizophrenic just needs to be positive and not negative?

Just as a side note.... kinetic energy is what makes our bodies work... potential energy is stored in our bodies as fat. (I have a fair amount of potential energy squirreled away )
Unless you are using the terms in a non-scientific way?

wa:do

Well it is a little more than just being positive. If you throw good apples on spoiled ones they tend to rot over time as well. It is a matter of releasing all of the negative emotional energy that they became resistant to and suppressed inside instead of dealing with is and as one does this they become more positive automatically or back in balance with nature.

We have the ability to reserve our energy and allow it to build up and use in positive directions or we can squander it away dealing with our own resistance to our fears and emotions etc..
Some people spend their energy always trying to change the past and present instead of excepting the way things are so they can use the energy for a good positive direction.Doing this throws someone off balance with nature and the body goes out of balance from the pressures of resistance.
I believe the mentally ill are those just caught in a state of fighting their own resistance.Allowing it to be there without fighting helps ease up the pressures they feel.If they keep allowing it to just be there and release how they feel it would get better as they realise the benefits of letting go.
Anyway I believe this is part of how we relate to the energy that permeates all of existance.

 

[painted wolf]

Well it is a little more than just being positive. If you throw good apples on spoiled ones they tend to rot over time as well. It is a matter of releasing all of the negative emotional energy that they became resistant to and suppressed inside instead of dealing with is and as one does this they become more positive automatically or back in balance with nature.

We have the ability to reserve our energy and allow it to build up and use in positive directions or we can squander it away dealing with our own resistance to our fears and emotions etc..
Some people spend their energy always trying to change the past and present instead of excepting the way things are so they can use the energy for a good positive direction.Doing this throws someone off balance with nature and the body goes out of balance from the pressures of resistance.
I believe the mentally ill are those just caught in a state of fighting their own resistance.Allowing it to be there without fighting helps ease up the pressures they feel.If they keep allowing it to just be there and release how they feel it would get better as they realise the benefits of letting go.
Anyway I believe this is part of how we relate to the energy that permeates all of existance.

This sounds like Scientology....
So again.. all a schizophrenic needs... is a mood coach or a pastor?

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

Oh no, you are in a totally twisting concept of what predictability is. If you call your theory of evolution, you need to predict evolution, not a bone locate miles away. Gee.

You are predicting evolution, just very specific on what we should find, where we should find it, and what time period we should find it. How is saying, 'we think A evolved into C; in the geological record there is no C 385 millions years ago, but there is 365 million years ago, and there is only A 385 million years ago. Therefore we should find the transition between A and C, "B", within that time frame if evolution is true. If we only find B before or after this gap then there is a problem. Scientists go to the 'gap' time period, look, and find "B", a successful prediction of evolution.

With the formula 2H2O = 2H2 + O2, you predict that water anywhere should be able to disolve into hygogen and oxygen. If you your formula is suspect of inaccurate, the use of critical data (say you can get the water from Mar) to attempt to falsify the forumla. If the formula is wrong, it will be falsified. You see that the prediction is about the rule developed and there is a way for such a prediction to be wrong to falsify the rule, in the case that the rule is wrong. You don't use your forumla to predict that there is a test tube around just because you are in the chem lab doing its experiment. And predictability works along side with falsifiability.

Except a formula like that is not a theory, it is more like a law in that it describes how things happen, not why they happen, which is what a theory attempts to do. You are trying to compare apples and oranges and saying that it needs to be yellow to work.

 

[Walkntune]

This sounds like Scientology....
So again.. all a schizophrenic needs... is a mood coach or a pastor?

wa:do

Not familiar with Scientology but just so you know the only difference between depression and schizophrenia is the personality type that is affected from the off balance,(state of being in resistance to nature).
Introverts and extroverts have different reactions and side effects. If medical science would at least try and pay a little attention to this they would quit causing so many suicides.You would think they would at least be able to see this much instead of guessing around with medications.
But anyway yes all the person needs to do is let go of trying to control his thoughts and feelings and the body would release all of the garbage causing the off balance.
It is normal for a child to let things go but as people get older they learn to hold on to things,bad feelings, thoughts etc...
We learn from our willful ignorance to go against nature and it can be fun and build up an ego to live on the edge but once someone gets suppressed there by the ego it turns into pain and frustration but it is easier to get out then people think.
By relearning to let go and not hold on the process starts to correct itself and really builds its own momentum as it is going back in the direction designed by nature instead of being resistant.

 

[painted wolf]

Here are a couple of the many formulas involved with evolution:
(p+q)2 = p2 + 2pq + q2

There you go... enjoy.

Few people realize that even evolution (and much of biology in fact) has a mathematical core to support it... but these are deep theory details that don't get touched in high school level discussion... and only introduced in Bachelor levels.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Not familiar with Scientology but just so you know the only difference between depression and schizophrenia is the personality type that is affected from the off balance,(state of being in resistance to nature).

Schizophrenics can be introverts or extroverts....
The real difference is in patterns of brain activity and there is evidence that there is a genetic basis for this illness. Though we have yet to track down which gene/s are involved.

wa:do

 

[Luminous]

Demons,negative energy, doesn't really matter the word choice to describe the effect. Yes I believe negative energy can get trapped in our bodies. I believe we have the ability to change the energy in our body from kinetic to potential energy. Those who go around in a kinetic state our more likely to allow negative energy in. Those who know how to stay in potential state longer(will power) learn how to build up a strong resistance to negativity and can become quite charismatic and positive with their aura.They have the greater ability to choose when they become kinetic instead of being dictated by resistance and negative emotions.

I would seriously like to know who is feeding you your information. recently i have come across many cases of Christians who seam to be trying to turn my current view of cause and effect completely around. they are having me believe the sun has energy because it is emiting light. once it stops emiting light it will have no source for its energy. that may sound fairly reasonable to an average mind, but to me such a thing is totally ridiculous: it is in fact the suns energy that causes it to emit light, not the other way around. In anycase, these Christians portraying themselves as less sane than muslims by asserting that THEIR biased but possible science is right...or will be proven right later. that is NOT good enough. that is INFACT dishonest. They begin with a premise of "supernatural energies" and assert that everything is the effect of those "not-yet-proven...paritcles?" Assuming that a change in chemicals is caused by the effect of THE IPU on our "soul" is ridiculous, dishonest, and a mockery of everything that has been worked thus far...untill one can measure and show the "mystical energies" effectively, it is best to not assume everything we know about cause and effect in biological systems is wrong. It is infact STIMULI that cause EFFECTS in our bodies. STIMULI being those things that affect our bodies such as CHEMICALS!(and our senses, and phisical and mental factors) no responce to "mystical energies" has ever been effectively shown...to the best of my knowledge.

 

[David M]

David_M

I have one simple question for you. Do you believe God created and designed THIS universe? Yes or no?

Define the scope of the terms "created" and "designed", as they cover a huge range of intervention.

But as a general concept my answer would be yes. However I don't belive God specifically created individual species.