Jump to content

"Magnetism" Question Covers Real Question


odintim
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok, not to contradict my previous post on having a new forum for science, I found a question in a theology forum peaked my interest. A member there posted the following:

 

Ok, evolutionismists here tell us we can trust the "Theory" of evolution because it is "Proven". Well, we are to believe them on something as complex as life, and that it "appeared" (something that Pasteur proved false) i.e. abiogenesis.

 

So, please explain to me the science behind magnatism. It is a simple request. Explain what the force is, not the mechanics behind what the force DOES, explain what it is. Explain why this force is never used up.

 

A simple request.

 

I hope my answer did it some justice. Correct me if I missed something or was off a bit.

 

Well, to begin with, no one needs to trust or mistrust 'science'. Nature and natural laws are there, whether or not we trust them, science only gives us SOME tools to try and understand how nature works. Granted, even if you do or don't have a belief in an intelligent designer, these tools are manmade and only understood by nature's basics, half the time not even that. Often, it is found some years after a 'tool' is created, that is not sufficient to measure the laws of nature so a new one or even an entirely new theory must be made to explain what is before us. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

 

Unfortunately, magnetism is one of those natural laws that has eluded us, as well as light and gravity. I call those the Big Three's - the physical laws that we can see the results of. We can explain how magnetism works, what it's effects are, and even what material is predisposed to have them, but not quite what drives magnetism. You can have a conversation all month long as to what the effects are, but when it comes down to the bare bones, we have YET to be able to explain the drive. Key word here being 'YET'. Science is always determined by this word.

 

Now, concerning 'evolution'. This is another theory that doesn't need to be trusted. Even I, an atheist, don't trust all the information given to us. Why? Because evolution doesn't belong to me, any other atheist, or any other theist. Evolution constantly changes on evidence found. I don't trust what I am told, I trust the evidence. Tangible, visable evidence.

 

Abiogenesis also has nothing to do with evolution. Abiogenesis deals with the origins of life, which no one knows anything about. We can theorize 24/7, but I do not think we will ever have an accurate answer. Even in the Bible you can only theorize. Ecclesiastes 3:20 - " All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. "

 

Abiogenesis nor evolution is something you need to 'believe' in. Belief in something requires faith, and I do not have faith in either, since they are not constant. Evidence and theory is in constant change, until evidence of any one thing reaches a final answer. Then I 'know', not believe.

 

But I realize that doesn't help you. I do hope that clears up a bit the confusion and muck there is around some of the misconceptions, however.

 

I specifically sidestepped the answer to his question on magnetism. I suspect if actually tried to give him any kind of answer trying to theorize on the drive behind magnetism, he would have saw opportunity to prove that it had something in relation to ID. I guess we'll see what his answer is.

 

OT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, not to contradict my previous post on having a new forum for science, I found a question in a theology forum peaked my interest. A member there posted the following:

 

Ok, evolutionismists here tell us we can trust the "Theory" of evolution because it is "Proven". Well, we are to believe them on something as complex as life, and that it "appeared" (something that Pasteur proved false) i.e. abiogenesis.

 

So, please explain to me the science behind magnatism. It is a simple request. Explain what the force is, not the mechanics behind what the force DOES, explain what it is. Explain why this force is never used up.

 

A simple request.

 

:)Hi Odintim! First, I would think that abiogenesis has not been proven false. I, who leans a lttle less towards intelligent design was due to a direct insight into life in the regards of abiogenesis. Initially, I confused abiogenesis with 'spontaneous generation'. Yes, spontaneous generation was clearly proven false, but abiogenesis is quite credible at this point! That was a shock that perhaps the direct magical infuence of God did not animate life as I had believed. Seems the eternal force did not do anything beyond our understanding here.

 

I hope my answer did it some justice. Correct me if I missed something or was off a bit.

 

Unfortunately, magnetism is one of those natural laws that has eluded us, as well as light and gravity. I call those the Big Three's - the physical laws that we can see the results of. We can explain how magnetism works, what it's effects are, and even what material is predisposed to have them, but not quite what drives magnetism. You can have a conversation all month long as to what the effects are, but when it comes down to the bare bones, we have YET to be able to explain the drive. Key word here being 'YET'. Science is always determined by this word.

What is magnetism suppose to prove here.... God? I too believe a bit like many Pantheist here, in that all the initial forces that created everything are the characteristics of "God". Not that God is a person, per se, but a force behind the universe. However, this can not culminate in the force of magnetism alone. I'm glad you also added a few other unexplainable forces. :wicked:

Abiogenesis also has nothing to do with evolution. Abiogenesis deals with the origins of life, which no one knows anything about. We can theorize 24/7, but I do not think we will ever have an accurate answer. Even in the Bible you can only theorize. Ecclesiastes 3:20 - " All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. "

Why does everyone say that abiogenesis isn't part of evolution? I know there must be a valid reason for this, because there is nothing to add to an argument if this were not so... I just don't understand why?! It seems to me to be the first step... how it started. The initial stages of evolution. I know someone knows the answer to this. :huh: Concerning coming from the dust, returning to dust... this is different than one's spirit... IMO, fwiw.

Abiogenesis nor evolution is something you need to 'believe' in. Belief in something requires faith, and I do not have faith in either, since they are not constant. Evidence and theory is in constant change, until evidence of any one thing reaches a final answer. Then I 'know', not believe.

 

IMO, fwiw, I think spiritual knowledge is evolutionary just like scientific knowledge is. Sure, science is objective research... but are we to say subjective experiences don't exist? C'mon! What is the path of subjective experiences that lead us to our internal goals? Let science lead us to our external objective goals. At some point, the two probably meet. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, here's my input on magnetism... I love C-T's sigline about animal magnetism and squirrels. :HaHa:

 

-- sorry, I'm in a sidetracking mode today... and now back to the regular schedule --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't explain everything I write, so does it make me intelligent? :lmao:

 

Haha HanSolo! :grin:

 

BTW, why is abiogenesis not the initial stage for evolution? Everyone always says theat abiogenesis and evolution are different... may I ask why?

 

Also, not because we can't explain a force... therefore makes it of God! No one knows. Heck, no one seems to be able to agree what God is! It may just be a matter of nomenclature.

 

IF we are able to discern that the initial force of the big bang dispersed its energy in such a way that seemed to suggest an intent towards order to manifest out of the seeming disorder... then what? Still a lucky random occurrence for the millionth big bang or something? Doesn't the fact that we are always proceeding into a more intricate, complex state in an orderly manner make you at least wonder if there is an intent to do so? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, why is abiogenesis not the initial stage for evolution? Everyone always says theat abiogenesis and evolution are different... may I ask why?

Yes, you may ask. :)

 

...

 

Oh, you wanted me to give an answer too?

 

...

 

Okay, they're separate because Evolution is about mutations and natural selection. Abiogenesis is what had to happen to go from non-living matter to living matter. Mutation and natural selection is not involved, but chemistry and physics instead.

 

To mix them is like saying "to manufacture a car, you also have to do the mining of iron core."

 

They relate, and one is depending on the other, but they're not the same science or process.

 

Or say that you would claim that typing on your keyboard to post a message on this board would require you to understand computers, CPU's and also semiconductor physics. They're related, but you can study the things separate and they have different rules/laws/theories.

 

Or let's say that astronomy have to be mixed up with quantum physics, since it is after all particles in space.

 

Or let's us not forget that the art of making beer would be the same science as meteorology or making glass (since water is needed and you need bottles).

 

So you see, it's not about they don't relate, but that they go into different sciences and different thinking.

 

Did that help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did that help?

I know you're right HanSolo, because all scientific minds say these two are separate. It just seems confusing to me.

 

OK, it seems that abiogenesis starts with chemicals collecting, and have a symbiotic catalytic relationship giving a hint to life. Somehow that progresses into the synthesizing of replicating polypeptide chains, and then in theory to a living organism. What stage do we declare the end of abiogenesis and evolution now begins? Once the life form became self replicating, where mutations can now begin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why does everyone say that abiogenesis isn't part of evolution?"

 

 

They differ in their degrees of statistical impossibility. Evolution is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying cross-country. Abiogenesis is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying to Jupiter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why does everyone say that abiogenesis isn't part of evolution?"

 

 

They differ in their degrees of statistical impossibility. Evolution is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying cross-country. Abiogenesis is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying to Jupiter.

 

:) Hi tx Viper!

 

I'm just curous to know if this is what they teach you in Sunday school? :Hmm:

 

Do you have some contributions that show you have actually looked at the evidence of abiogenesis, did significant research of it, and considered it logically for its credibility... or are you too afraid of the consequences of hell to live your life free of this fear to explore ideas in a more liberated manner? The bondage of fear is a powerful chain from which to be set free, can you do that?

 

I use to think that God was the one who directly animated life. How can I refute the evidence of abiogenesis once I looked at it? Check it out and let's see if you can break the chain of fear to actually look at it with an open mind... and have a genuine and intellectual conversation. Heck, they tolerate me... they'll tolerate you too... if you have an open mind. When you're free from the belief of eternal hell, you'll find you're free from having been living in it all along. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why does everyone say that abiogenesis isn't part of evolution?"

 

 

They differ in their degrees of statistical impossibility. Evolution is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying cross-country. Abiogenesis is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying to Jupiter.

Nah, more like a lizzard turns into a Texas viper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why does everyone say that abiogenesis isn't part of evolution?"

 

 

They differ in their degrees of statistical impossibility. Evolution is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying cross-country. Abiogenesis is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying to Jupiter.

 

You are such a fucking liar it's amazing.

 

God creating someone as dumb as you is as likely as a mule growing wings, yet you're still here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, more like a lizzard turns into a Texas viper.

 

:lmao:

 

Things have gotten this bad with this poster, eh'?

 

If you've lost your patience this much.... he must be a troll really taunting members! :ugh:

 

HanSolo... you still keep your humor though. :HaHa:

 

Even if it is a WARNING! :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are such a fucking liar it's amazing.

Of course he lies; it's the nature of the snake. :)

 

God creating someone as dumb as you is as likely as a mule growing wings, yet you're still here.

Yeah, you're right. He's the proof of unintelligent design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why does everyone say that abiogenesis isn't part of evolution?"

 

 

They differ in their degrees of statistical impossibility. Evolution is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying cross-country. Abiogenesis is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying to Jupiter.

 

I've always found this "statistical" thing used so much by the fundy's to be a little weak. If they could present something that proved the world was only a few thousand years old, then it might hold a little more water. As they tend to try to use it, it seems they are defeating thier own arguement; if the universe were billions of years old, then that "million-to-one odds" seems a lot more likely I would think...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why does everyone say that abiogenesis isn't part of evolution?"

 

 

They differ in their degrees of statistical impossibility. Evolution is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying cross-country. Abiogenesis is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying to Jupiter.

Somebody hasnt done any reseaaaaaaaarch. Evolution is taught by the devil to trick people away from Jezus :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why does everyone say that abiogenesis isn't part of evolution?"

 

 

They differ in their degrees of statistical impossibility. Evolution is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying cross-country. Abiogenesis is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying to Jupiter.

 

 

Let us say for the sake of argument that an intelligent designer is behind the creation of life. Then, how did he do it? That is what I want to know. Your explanation is useless because it explains nothing at all. Even if he just snaps his fingers (figuratively), then there must be some mechanism behind it. Is it wrong for us to explore that mechanism?

 

If intelligent design has nothing to do with Christianity then why are you offended by this search for knowledge? Perhaps the ‘designer’ is flattered that his creation would attempt to understand how he did it. Perhaps the designer of the universe is not as petty as you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I can back up to the original topic... (Is that allowed, or will it cause a forum traffic jam? :HaHa: )

Here's my little tidbit of science on magnetism...

 

Magnetism is just a property of electrons. Electrons can be detected and described by their mass, charge and the direction of their spin as they whizz around their nucleus. It is the spin that defines the tiny magnetic field effect that all electrons have. And since electricity is simply a flow of electron energy, it can be created by, and can itself create, a magnetic field (which is why scientists say "electromagnetism" a lot).

 

In a small way, all matter has some magnetism, it's just that all those electrons in all those atoms are spinning in random directions, so there is no large-scale magnetic effect (although the small-scale effect can still be utilized, as in medical MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanners).

However, some materials, such as certain metals, have atoms that can sort of roll around more freely. In these metals, the magnetic field of one atom may cause the electrons in a neighboring atom to align along the same axis of spin; these will in turn affect their neighbors and so forth. Pretty soon, you'll have a hunk of metal with bazillions of electrons all spinning in the same direction and viola, you have a magnet.

 

However, if electromagnetism is, as scientists assume, one of the most fundamental forces of the universe, there is no way to say "what magnetism is" other than calling it magnetism. It is not a substance or secondary form of energy that can be exhausted, it is not made up of some other things, it is simply a function of the universe being the way it is. You might as well be asking, "What is mass made of?"

 

Of course, an ignorant person would then say that since magnetism isn't made of anything, it must come from God. Which neatly explains why He answers so few prayers -- He's too damn busy keeping all those fraggin' electrons spinning...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I can back up to the original topic... (Is that allowed, or will it cause a forum traffic jam? :HaHa: )

Here's my little tidbit of science on magnetism...

 

Magnetism is just a property of electrons. Electrons can be detected and described by their mass, charge and the direction of their spin as they whizz around their nucleus. It is the spin that defines the tiny magnetic field effect that all electrons have. And since electricity is simply a flow of electron energy, it can be created by, and can itself create, a magnetic field (which is why scientists say "electromagnetism" a lot).

 

In a small way, all matter has some magnetism, it's just that all those electrons in all those atoms are spinning in random directions, so there is no large-scale magnetic effect (although the small-scale effect can still be utilized, as in medical MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scanners).

However, some materials, such as certain metals, have atoms that can sort of roll around more freely. In these metals, the magnetic field of one atom may cause the electrons in a neighboring atom to align along the same axis of spin; these will in turn affect their neighbors and so forth. Pretty soon, you'll have a hunk of metal with bazillions of electrons all spinning in the same direction and viola, you have a magnet.

 

However, if electromagnetism is, as scientists assume, one of the most fundamental forces of the universe, there is no way to say "what magnetism is" other than calling it magnetism. It is not a substance or secondary form of energy that can be exhausted, it is not made up of some other things, it is simply a function of the universe being the way it is. You might as well be asking, "What is mass made of?"

 

Of course, an ignorant person would then say that since magnetism isn't made of anything, it must come from God. Which neatly explains why He answers so few prayers -- He's too damn busy keeping all those fraggin' electrons spinning...

I hope I don't sound too ignorant, but what I have bolded begs an answer because it indicates intellegence. What causes this behavior in electrons? What is this 'function of the universe'? And, I don't think God answers prayers because whatever this Force is IS the cause of the electrons spinning because it IS the electrons/atoms. I don't know what to call it. Maybe Force, God, Power of the Universe, Consciousness. But that is, IMO, what people are wondering about when they realize that mass is made of nothing, basically. I think that what we see are the effects and not the cause. Can we ever see the cause? I don't know...just my opinions!

 

Edit: I have heard a couple of spiritual speakers speak of this Being/Whatever as No-thing. So, if it is no thing, then one would be correct in calling it nothing! And how are we to study nothing? This is where science ends, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I don't sound too ignorant, but what I have bolded begs an answer because it indicates intellegence. What causes this behavior in electrons? What is this 'function of the universe'? And, I don't think God answers prayers because whatever this Force is IS the cause of the electrons spinning because it IS the electrons/atoms. I don't know what to call it. Maybe Force, God, Power of the Universe, Consciousness. But that is, IMO, what people are wondering about when they realize that mass is made of nothing, basically. I think that what we see are the effects and not the cause. Can we ever see the cause? I don't know...just my opinions!

 

Edit: I have heard a couple of spiritual speakers speak of this Being/Whatever as No-thing. So, if it is no thing, then one would be correct in calling it nothing! And how are we to study nothing? This is where science ends, IMO.

NBBTB, I saw in this incredible video I checked out from the library, Mind Walk. It has such fascinating scientific information, that I highly recommend it to everyone. The physisist on that show claims that just by looking at the electron, we change it! :twitch: In actuality, the electron is everywhere all the time. Yes, I know about the atom's nucleus and covalent shells which are inhabited by their own electron. I don't understand it well enough to explain it... but the show really made sense! Einstien said something like this all is just an illusion, but a very persistent one. Well.... whose illusion is it? Consciousness? or Unconsiousness?

 

Of course, my philosophy of God is that we look everywhere for it... but it is everywhere, because it is everything, IMHO. What do you mean by calling it nothing? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I don't sound too ignorant, but what I have bolded begs an answer because it indicates intellegence. What causes this behavior in electrons? What is this 'function of the universe'? And, I don't think God answers prayers because whatever this Force is IS the cause of the electrons spinning because it IS the electrons/atoms. I don't know what to call it. Maybe Force, God, Power of the Universe, Consciousness. But that is, IMO, what people are wondering about when they realize that mass is made of nothing, basically. I think that what we see are the effects and not the cause. Can we ever see the cause? I don't know...just my opinions!

 

Edit: I have heard a couple of spiritual speakers speak of this Being/Whatever as No-thing. So, if it is no thing, then one would be correct in calling it nothing! And how are we to study nothing? This is where science ends, IMO.

NBBTB, I saw in this incredible video I checked out from the library, Mind Walk. It has such fascinating scientific information, that I highly recommend it to everyone. The physisist on that show claims that just by looking at the electron, we change it! :twitch: In actuality, the electron is everywhere all the time. Yes, I know about the atom's nucleus and covalent shells which are inhabited by their own electron. I don't understand it well enough to explain it... but the show really made sense! Einstien said something like this all is just an illusion, but a very persistent one. Well.... whose illusion is it? Consciousness? or Unconsiousness?

 

Of course, my philosophy of God is that we look everywhere for it... but it is everywhere, because it is everything, IMHO. What do you mean by calling it nothing? :)

That reminds me of the movie, What the Bleep Do We Know?.

 

Alan Watts was one of the people that mentioned this consciousness/intelligence (I can't remember for sure) as No Thing. He also speaks about waves and particles and this CD was from his speeches in the 60's!

 

I think what it means is when we observe anything, it is only the effects that we see. We never see the cause because it is no thing. It transcends any 'thing'. And, when all we can study and perceive are things, how are we to know and understand this no thing? When we look at a rock, we perceive a thing but the thing is not actually a thing but the effect of molecules and atoms combining into what we perceive to be a thing. So, God is not a thing that can be studied, but a force (no thing) that is inside every'thing'.

 

He goes on to talk about how every opposite is not apart from its counter part, but necessarily one. Like every wave has peaks and valleys (or whatever they call it), the wave would not exist if there was no peak or there was no valley. Just like No Thing and thing! :grin: Of course, I could have screwed up the meaning he was trying to convey... :shrug::HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why does everyone say that abiogenesis isn't part of evolution?"

 

 

They differ in their degrees of statistical impossibility. Evolution is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying cross-country. Abiogenesis is as likely as a mule growing wings and flying to Jupiter.

 

 

And what is the statistical possibility of a talking snake? Or a talking donkey?

 

Silly us.....believing in evidence and science! What could we have been thinking? It was all about a magic garden, a magic tree with magic fruit, and a talking snake! And of course the entire population of the world....what 6 billion, was sparked by 2 apparantly "magic" people just 6000 years ago!

 

Stupid, stupid us! How could we possibly believe the earth has been around for many thousands of years? Especially when it's so obvious that half our entire species was originally crafted out of a single rib belonging to a member of the other half of the species! Duh!!!

 

We are such :loser: for seeking the explanations for everything when the answers are all clearly laid out in a book composed by unknown authors! How dare we be exploring the world and space around us.....we should be decently burning witches and killing everyone who goes out to get the newspaper on Sunday morning like good little god-fearing boys and girls!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The physisist on that show claims that just by looking at the electron, we change it!

My understanding of this phenomenon has always been that the change is a function of the way we see. To "see" and electron we need to iradiate it in some way. Even with "normal" sight we are detecting the light bouncing back off of the object we observe. The way I heard it, it's this addition of energy that causes the electrons to shift. But, I'm no expert here.

 

What causes this behavior in electrons? What is this 'function of the universe'? And, I don't think God answers prayers because whatever this Force is IS the cause of the electrons spinning because it IS the electrons/atoms. I don't know what to call it. Maybe Force, God, Power of the Universe, Consciousness.

 

I can understand your frustration. We don't know the underlying princible that causes this effect. But calling it "Force", "God", "Power of the Universe" and especially "Conciousness" all create connotations beyond that which we actually observe. "Force" isn't too bad, but it's very vague. "God" implies (in most peoples' minds) an anthropomorphic being, "Power of the Universe" implies there's only one, and again, is kind of vague. "Consciousness" implies almost as much as "god" in this respect and applies attributes (life, intent, etc) that I don't believe conform to the observed phenomenon.

 

Please don't think I'm trying to put anybody down here...

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen 'What the Bleep do We Know' also, it's a very good movie. Although, keep in mind, it has a very New Age Physics flavor, but it does introduce some of the weird things that have been discovered in quantum physics.

 

When they were talking about our consciousness changing the state of things, they were refering to the wave/particle duality of matter and photons. When something is observable, it acts like a particle, when it isn't observable, it acts like a wave. People interprit this in different ways, and a lot like to make a connection between consciousness and waves collapsing into particles.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_particle_duality

 

The other aspect of not being able to accurately measure the postion and speed of a particle at the same time is called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_Un...ainty_Principle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.