Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcsb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!miller
From: miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Honesty
Message-ID: <32500021@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 27-Jan-85 22:06:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.32500021
Posted: Sun Jan 27 22:06:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Jan-85 05:37:34 EST
References: <1012@utastro.UUCP>
Lines: 19
Nf-ID: #R:utastro:-101200:uiucdcsb:32500021:000:1025
Nf-From: uiucdcsb!miller    Jan 27 21:06:00 1985

>I have read a number of "scientific" papers by creationists, I mean
>supposedly professional publications, and they have been universally *poor*.
>They consistantly misuse analytic methods, misapply general scientific
>principles, use faulty logic, and even use questionable data.
>Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

Oh?  Zat right?  Perhaps you would like to cite some for us?  Since most evolu-
tionists claim that creationists never publish in "professional publications" &
you claim to have read "a number" (which I assume is nonzero) of "universally
*poor*" papers, perhaps you would like to back up your claims with some ref-
erences?  In reality, we have yet another example of evolutionists arguing both
sides of the fence, i.e., that creationists *do not* publish outside of crea-
tionist journals, and that creationists *do* publish outside of creationist
journals (but their papers are poor).  You should get together with the other
evolutionists on the net and develop a consistant strategy.

A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinois