2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

Give him a break, this is a message board not a chat room, sometimes people don't get a chance to check a thread for a couple of days.TTFN,WK

Tesla's reputation is still pretty sound as far as I know. Some of his inventions and ideas may not be respected, but then the same could be said of Newton or indeed Darwin. How do you go from generating sympathetic resonances in the earth to "the very energy in the fabric of the universe and the earth could be tapped directly", or indeed draw any inferences that he was making use of 'vacuum energy'.Tesla was certainly a very remarkable man but you seem to be totally uncritically accepting any claim about any of his ideas, or at least expecting us to? Wireless transmission of power over short distances by induction is well understood, what are you suggesting Tesla's alternative long distance method was and why are you positing any role in it for the 'vacuum'?.TTFN,WK

With Reference to the Behe and Snoke (2004) paper, I'm not sure why you couldn't find it. It has been in print for some time now, in fact there was a paper critiquing Behe and Snoke and proposing a model more in line with the current literature published just last month in Protein Science (Lynch, 2005), along with a response from Behe and Snoke.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-07-2005 02:35 AM

Well it was Randman to whom the initial request for the information on the Behe and Snoke paper was addressed and I was posting this since he is obviously unable to answer for himself and Mike was asking him to.. So I posted with material relevant to that claim because, 'Randman is gone'.But I've changed the subtitle anyway, always glad to oblige.TTFN,WKP.S. what does your post have to do with the subtitle on it?