I wish He had Linked the Parts, if not indexed

Here are at least three parts in a series on Darwinism and Communism. Not sure if there is any fourth.

I came to the series from the second part, then clicked a link labelled "in this series" - and came to latest month's index on the blog.

But the three parts I found were from January 2009, as I found after looking at date.

• Darwinism & Communism, Part I
  David Klinghoffer January 16, 2009 2:24 AM
  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/01/darwinism_communism_part_i015641.html
  
  
• Darwinism & Communism, Part II
  David Klinghoffer January 20, 2009 5:12 PM
  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/01/darwinism_communism_part_ii015891.html
  
  
• Darwinism & Communism, Part III
  David Klinghoffer January 21, 2009 5:17 AM
  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/01/darwinism_communism_part_ii_1015931.html

I would have, in top section of each post, inserted (post factum) links to newer as well as older posts of same series.

Like this:

Darwinism & Communism, Part I · Part II · Part III

In this case, as title is identic, all posts come after it in bold letters and links are only marked "part N". In my own blogs (this and other ones on other themes) I would insert part specific titles in link, and only numerate very minutely before each part, like this:

1) Creation vs. Evolution : In Today's Article on Maxwell, CMI Linked Back to an Oldie · 2) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What Cusa Really Said · 3) New blog on the kid : Everything a Giant Miracle? Why, Yes!

This one spans several blogs, and therefore has a black and bold not message, but blog title before each part. This blog because I found it due to CMI for first message, Φιλολoγικά/Philologica because it is about what exactly someone in the past uttered, thus a question of philological learning, my (newest) main blog, because general theology which is not given for apologetics of itself usually comes on my main blogs.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St. John's Nativity
YooL 2016

PS, on some of my blogs, like my main one, I tend to keep an index:

Index Indicum

Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology

Dr. Eberhard Zangger, at the 50th Winterseminar on 18 January 2015, Luwian studies, mentions that excavating Bronze Age sites is difficult.

You get Bronze Age about 3 to 5 meters below the surface. You first have to go through Medieval material, Classical material, Dark Age material before you get down to the Bronze Age.

Now, in invertebrate marine palaeontology, you get a stratification close to that.

In vertebrate palaeontology, you don't get that. You don't dig 5 meters after dinos the way you dig 5 meters down to look if there is a Bronze Age city. You depend on finding what is close on the surface, because laters layers above, supposed to have been there, have eroded.

More on this topic, see my Classical (or so I hope) series on Three Meanings:

Three Meanings of Chronological Labels

In detail:1) How do Fossils Superpose?, 2) Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix on Karoo, Beaufort), 3) What I think I have refuted, 4) Glenn Morton caught abusing words other people were taught as very small children

In debate or otherwise on Assorted Retorts: 1) ... on How Fossils Matter , 2) ... on Steno and Lifespan and Fossil Finds, 3) Geological Column NOT Palaeontolical [Censored by CMI-Creation-Station? Or just by the Library I am in?], 4) Same Debate Uncensored, One Step Further, 5) Continuing debate with Howard F on Geology / Palaeontology, 6) Howard F tries twice again ... , 7) Is Howard F getting tired? Because up to now, he has failed., 8) Resuming Debate with Howard F

On Correspondence blog: Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils

And if anyone wanted to know, it is nicer to write and ask me, than to use prayer or magic hoping God and His angels, or demons, shall put the topic before me, by their providence. Which however they did, one or other, hoping it be God./HGL