You are correct, as I stated before: It's quantum mechanics. It is not as
the psychic friends and other hocus pocus myths of popular literature.
P.S. I'm not a creationist - I'm a T.E.
Blaine D. McArthur wrote:
>
> Regarding the Kirlian thread (sounds like the name of an old Star Trek
> episode, doesn't it?)
>
> Anyway, as I was saying, regarding the Kirlian thread, let me make two
> comments:
>
> First of all John, I think Bill made a point of emphasizing that he was
> not talking about metaphysical "hocus pocus"; he was, I believe,
> attempting to indicate that there were some kind of technical
> applications of this phenomenon. (correct bill?) I do not think he was
> referring to any kind of new agish "psychic aura." nonsense. Of
> course, I wish he could be a bit more specific about the "technical
> applications" of this, which brings me to my second comment.
>
> Bill, just today, I happened to wander into the Talkorigins website, and
> found myself on the page that teaches one "how to argue like a
> creationist." One of the major complaints I found was that creationist
> would frequently say something like:
>
> "I'm not going to do your science for you... discussion is closed."
> (sorry Bill)
>
> You referred us to a book. It is not uncommon on the list to provide a
> few more details, or a simple bibliography for the benefit of those of
> us who do not have immediate access. True, not everyone does, and there
> have been other similar squabbles of this sort just because of that.
> Have you looked into this fuller Bill - IS there peer reviewed
> literature on this subject?
>
> Frankly this whole thread seems to have degenerated into a silly "did
> too - did not - did too - did not ---" argument.
>
> Blaine
>
> (oh yeah, the Tholian Web episode....)
-- William A. Wetzel tapr-id# 7738 icq-uin# 13983514 http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky http://www.qsl.net/n6rky mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net mailto:n6rky@qsl.net