Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Honesty
Message-ID: <282@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 13:50:59 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.282
Posted: Tue Jan 29 13:50:59 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 09:28:37 EST
References: <1012@utastro.UUCP> <32500021@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 47

In article <32500021@uiucdcsb.UUCP> miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP writes:
>
>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

	I'll admit I did not find the material in journals, since
no reputable jornal would accept a creationist's paper.  The
publications were books written by creationist scientists.
The one I remember the best is a book which attempted to re-analyze
the ecology of the wooly mammoth. This book was *full* of misuses
of accepted biological principles, in much the same vein as the
frequent misuse of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by creationists.
The misused principles include such things as "Otherwise similar
organisms tend to have shorter limbs, and other extremities in
colder climates".  The author actually attempted to apply this
to a comparison between totally different animals, perhaps a desert
fox and an elephant, violating the first clause of the principle.
There are several such principles known in biology relating
variation in anatomy to environment, in similar organisms.
The book in question misused *all* of them, in the same way,
by making comparisons between non-similar animals.  For instance
he compared the density of the wooly mammoth's fur to that of
*small* arctic mammals(such as the arctic hare), completely 
ignoring the square-cube law and its effect on heat retention!
	The premise of the book was that since the creationists'
paradigm does not admit the existance of an ice age, the wooly
mammoth could not have been arctic adapted in the subarctic
locations where it has been found.  It was an attempt at serious
scientific discussion, not a pamphlet or tract. It was an utter
failure, and in fact cannot be taken seriously.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
 or
quad1!psivax!friesen