Your IP address is 184.108.40.206
View Author detected.
view author posts with search matches:
Retrieve source record and display it.
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Laser%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_result: Resource id #6
|Date: 2006/05/01 04:04:30, Link|
You seem to be honest in your desire for feedback, so I will give you honest critiques. Gee, where to start? The beginning, I guess.
Science doesn't really say anything for or against points A and B. They aren't questions that science can address. (At least not at this point in time. It might be possible in the future, but it might not be possible either.)
In point C, you immediately start to limit yourself in a way that science does not. "I make no proposal as to HOW MANY animals there were initially. Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later) " Why won't you make a claim? Is it because the claim could be tested and found to be wrong? Science makes hypotheses that are tested all the time. You're already starting on a nonexistent foundation.
In point D, you finally make a claim: "It is proposed that early man was vigorous, healthy and possibly taller than modern humans. Early families were very large--on the order of 30 to 50 kids per couple and lives were long, many over 900 years." What evidence do you have for this claim? Any fossils of humans taller than today's humans? Any archaelogical digs that show structures designed for tall humans or very large families? (No, the Bible doesn't count as evidence. There are places in the Bible that say bats are birds, so I'm not confident in the Bible as a source of scientific evidence and knowledge.)
Later in point D: "The first laws prohibiting close marriages did not occur until the time of Moses by which time we assume that accumulated harmful genetic mutations would have been a significant consideration." Again, why "assume"? Why not look for evidence?
Your chain of "abductive logic" has glaring flaws and weaknesses from the get go.
|Date: 2006/06/29 02:28:07, Link|
This is a little off-topc, but shouldn't there be a thread that pokes fun at Larry F's blog, akin to this one poking fun at UD? I went to Larry F's blog yesterday and nearly fell out of my chair laughing!
(I'm hoping someone else will start the thread--I'm working for tenure here and probably shouldn't spend my time periodically writing about the sheer hilarity of old Larry.)
|Date: 2006/06/29 05:26:56, Link|
|Ahh, thanks for the link.|
|Date: 2006/07/16 11:41:38, Link|
Larry has found it necessary to end his no-ban policy:
Why, you might wonder? Someone is impersonating him. Oh, the irony!