DrP

Because they are pressure waves not electromagnetic. They propagate through the air... of which there is none in a vacuum.

I do not know for sure... but I used to know a kid who had a white patch in his hair and his parents did not, so that would suggest so.

How are you defining nothing in this statement? A lot of the first page of this thread was talking about definition and context. What about the virtual particle pairs that pop into and out of existence? (although they obviously do not come from 'nothing'.. they do appear to. Matter moving through dimensions not bound by our 4?) What was Einstein's E=mC2 if it wasn't physics? It was very much maths. I am certain that there are many natural things that seem to defy common sense and logic that we do not understand. Only viewing the universe with eyes and minds that can see and think in 4 dimensions might limit us as to what we can ever know about a multi dimensional universe.

ha ha - yea - I've just realised, lol. ARE there any buildings older than 500 years old in your country even?

OK thanks. I think they might be an USA thing then - I've not heard of them over here in the EU. I work in 'Passive' Fire protection, so wouldn't necessarily know about the system anyway as it is active, but would have thought I would know more about it if it was common here.

Do old buildings in the US all have these fitted then or something?

Yea - dam those architects from 1163!... always cutting corners on the latest fire tech and health and safety procedures in place of budget constraints. They had enough money for a giant golden cross though didn't they! ;-) At the end of the day - no-one died... in that respect it was a 'good' fire. I was a little sickened by the very pious sounding man on the radio who was quick to donate 100 million dollars for refurb. So far 600 million dollars have been raised... where were these people when the families of Grenfield tower lost their homes and loved ones? Lets get some perspective - it is a building and no-one was killed. Move on and be thankful there was no loss of life... it isn't half as tragic as some are making out.

lol - sorry - I was taking the mick out of the recent show of moronism from the POTUS... that and my own dislexcicia ;-)

yes doh! - I orangelly spelt it that way and decided to look it up and the site I went to spelt it the other way.

I too thought that the base looked like snakes eating themselves ( like Orobus?) I can see how the top looks like a ceiling.... and as such a 3D representation in 2D. I am not sure if that has any significance though beyond the artists knack for perspective. What is the picture from? From what period/civilization?

Could be trace monomer or solvents used in the manufacture. Probably so small amounts as not to be harmful although you can almost always smell new plastics. The monomer is propylene I think (thus poly-propylene). I do not know about the biocides or the oleamide - again - probably very trace amounts otherwise it would show up in their QC testing one would think and they would have to label it as a hazard. The latest EU laws do push for indoor air quality testing on most things now (or it is coming in). - They are getting pretty hot on anything. The smell should go after a while... I wouldn't fret about it too much... even if harmful you will need a lot more than the trace amounts leaching from the cured plastic to harm you I would think. I am sure the plastic has been used to manufacture all sorts of things for many years without any reported claims of harm from it. However - I wouldn't want to buy a fresh one every day and lick it clean for the next ten years. ;-)

I could write an essay on it dim. Freedom from the ignorant laws still in place due to religion (it was only made illegal in the UK about 20 years ago to rape your wife due to what it says in the bible about man and wife being one and the others possessions etc)... and that is in the west - look at the middle east and how they treat their women - don't tell me religion hasn't held them back from developing their society. Also on a personal level - freedom from the grief and fear that everyone who does not believe is going to eternal hell. That shit is what drives Christians to be pests... they want to save your soul and cry buckets for you. I don't miss that bullshit at all. Freedom from the ridicule of your peers for believing such fairytales etc. There is a long list. Dawkins hits the nail right on the head for me. Christopher Higgins too.... although I'll agree that sometimes he could come across as a miserable git, lol. That aside - it doesn't mean I can't go through my days with love in heart for my fellow man or full of joy for the very existence of things.

I don't care what people believe either. BUT, if we are going to discuss the existence god in a debate like scenario over a beer or over an internet forum then I am not just going say 'yeah, whatever' to any base less claim of the supernatural... especially as a member of a science forum. That's not extremist or fundamentalist (whatever that means) - it is conversation. So - I stand by saying that every atheist is a fundamentalist. (Unless you are changing the definition of the word fundamental). I would say he was an activist or something like that for sure. There are no fundamentals to atheism other than the belief that there is not a god. You believe that then you are a fundamentalist. He does ACTIVELY go out to share his views though - which shows he cares about the world and the people in it in my book (I could be wrong) rather than leaving people in their ignorance. The false belief in gods has 'held back' the world from progressing further into understanding and freedom.

What does it even mean to be a fundamentalist atheist? I still think it's BS. I am guessing you are basing your opinion of him on a few selected highlights of him getting angry during 2 hour debates. He sticks to what we believe to be facts. Have you read his books? Have you watched the whole 2 hour debate that lead to his emotion? He claims to be an agnostic anyway... i.e. present him proof of god and hell listen... give him an old book full of errors he'll laugh in your face and for good reason. I get he gets emotional - who wouldn't after 2 hours of debate hearing the same tripe over and over. What leads you to the claim he is a 'fundamentalist'? The only 'fundamentals' of atheism are the belief in the absence of a god based on the evidence provided... in that sense EVERY atheist is a fundamentalist.

haha - it might give you an edge... but in the interest of decent discussion lets start again on equal footing eh? Regarding the OP - I think his questions were answered, but I think many get stuck up on the 'improbability' of these mutations proving useful and are incredulous as to how something random can be useful... but they do not take into account the extreme timescales that it takes for these things to happen. They see an eye and think it would be impossible for it to come about by chance and feel it must be designed.

I used to be one.... and I forgive myself for it. I understand how easy it is to get sucked into that nonsense. So it appears... but they go away and think. In their own terms it plants a seed that they could be wrong... so wrong in fact that most think their position absolutely ludicrous beyond reason. I am lucky to have snapped out of it and thankful for the likes of Dawkins for telling it as it is rather than tiptoeing around eggshells. Dawkins himself said that ridicule is what made him challenge his own religious beliefs when he was younger. It clearly works for some... no one ever converts one way or the other from a single polite conversation. It takes years of discussion and debate... a lot of love... and a little bit of ridicule for some, lol. Again - sorry for the confusion. I quoted the OP and you replied pretty quickly addressing what I wrote and confused you with the OP earlier. Dumb error on my part.

Maybe - but there were claims of arrogance without supporting evidence of arrogance (I know why people think he is arrogant and I think I have a right to defend him against such a claim... not that I know him personally, but, for the reasons I stated I think people get the wrong idea due to the dissonance they feel as his arguments are counter to their beliefs). Also - sorry - I did confuse you for the OP earlier somehow - not that it matters - I was addressing what you wrote and what the OP wrote.... so I still do not feel it is off topic. I'll bow to the moderator's wisdom though. Maybe the OP did just want to discus the evolution of the eye.... if so, he could have left out the digs about the author of the book he is reading. Including such digs makes the author as much the topic of conversation as the eye percentage question - thus - not off topic imo. this I agree could be wandering off topic and I am happy not to discuss it further, but I disagree that it falls into the same trap. If you take the line that it is myth when it suits you and true when it backs your point then it is a total cop out in my book and you can go in circles without end. IMO the argument is easily settled as to if there is a god or not... let him put up (show up) or shut up - so far no show. All too broad to discuss without specific examples.. lets not bother. But in another thread I would ask for the examples and address them - some are probably as you claim, but I reckon each one would need separate address. Although many things lead to my own 'conversion' from Christianity to atheism, Dawkins helped tip the balance and helped me think rationally and logically about the subject. I like his direct and to the point no nonsense style. I know - I was one of them for a long time. Again I disagree... he talks directly to the fundamentalists. If you point out how ludicrous their arguments are then it chips away at their delusion slowly over time. He even confesses that ridicule played a big part in getting him to even consider that his religious beliefs could be wrong when he was younger.

Unless you mean that you only wanted to discuss the percentage change of going from 0% eye to 0.0000001% eye. In which case it would be hard to be exact as it all happened long before we even were. I do not know the 'probability' of it happening.... but over several billion years you can bet that many many mutations were tried and rejected before that 0.0001% of an eye gave any evolutionary benefit enough to keep and develop I would assume.

How is it off topic? It directly applies to the points you claimed in the OP. Which ones - lets address them to see where you have misunderstood them or I have. I disagree. The holes do not vanish - they prove the point it is not the infallible word of god. After that what have you got? There is some wisdom in it, but also some evil shit, which Christians turn a blind eye too or make lame excuses for. Yep - I agree - the god of the gaps is getting smaller and smaller. How is it off topic if we are discussing Dawkins? Claims made by him are surely integral to the conversation. It sounds like you are ducking out of something you know isn't going to go that well. ;-) I'll do the same as it is CLEARLY on the topic of the OP.

Is purely stating facts considered attacking religion though? If I state for a fact that the bible has holes in it and does not stand up to scrutiny then is that attacking religion or simply pointing out that rationality and the bible do not sit well together? If I state that modern science shows that many of the claims of religion are obviously and demonstrably false - is that an attack on religion or simply a statement of observation? this is probably based on many of the popular video clips of him ridiculing or lambasting an opponent of his in one of his many debates. You have to take them in context. After an hour of going in circles with some pointing out that you deal with facts not woo how long before it gets heated. If you agree with him then you are more likely to see why he gets frustrated and turns occasionally to ridicule over patient explanation. People focus on these heated moments and say he is arrogant... why should he pander ignorance when that is the very thing he is fighting against?

Many of the repairations and refurbs were. Just to be clear - my coins from the Kushan Empire aren't real and they were made to give support to the lie that the Kushans ever existed and all that history was made up to fool people?

Yea? This guy, Tom Grant, has shown for a fact that the moon is made of cheese. http://zemonster.tripod.com/cheesy.html Because they covered it all up of course! How else are they going to fool people 500 years later?

some of my coins are from the Kushan empire... which was set up before Christ. And ancient Greece and Rome. They have pictures of Constantine, Claudius etc.. on them. Are they made up too?

I have coins that date back way before then. Did they put false dates on them to trick us or something? What utter rot.