Sorry to differ, but I really preferred Gould because he was a reasonable person and not an inflammatory asshole. Somehow I think that leaves a better impression.

And don't worry! The Islamists have a budding creationist movement of their own. Most of their stuff, however, is cribbed directly from Christian creationist websites.

The Muslims also have an end-times Dominionist movement they picked up from U.S. fundies--it's most popular in Egypt, and even features the return of Jesus (just to make it really confusing, I guess, since Muslims argue Jesus was a human prophet who...just died). It's a grotesque, scary hybrid, pairing up Taliban fanaticism with "Apocalypse Fever". Sort of like a "Left Behind with Bin Laden".

Salon's even done an interview with a Turkish scientist who wrote a book about the various cross-pollinations of fundie Islam and fundie Christianity. I forget the name, though.

Religions, like species, evolve. Go figure.

I appreciate your observation (no, really). But there are differences between petrification and fossilization.

A "3-D" copy of the bone is not the bone itself, and the distinction is significant in the context of this conversation (bones can't last millions of year--response: no, they can't, but a fossil is not a bone).

The fossilized impression that you're probably thinking of is a "mold fossil", the shape left behind when the body is gone. It's a negative, inverse image. Think of the most famous kind, dinosaur footprints.

The 3-D fossil that is made when the cavity left behind is filled up with sendiment is called the "cast fossil". More rarely you get actual "true form fossilization" of the item itself. Normally the item must be very hard. Teeth are often true form fossils, but whole skeletons not so much.

Petrification, or perimineralization, happens when the organic tissues do not rot, and minerals seep in and harden. Silica, calcite, and pyrite are all good candidates for this process, and they preserve both hard and soft body parts. Most petrified organic matter is of considerably more recent vintage than fossilized remains. An exception are the beautiful pyritized ammonites you can sometimes buy in fossil shops.

Dinosaur "bones" are usually cast fossils. The very few dinosaur "mummies" that have been found displaying impressions of soft tissue are not true mummies because no actual tissue is preserved. It's just a handy, media-friendly word.

Hope that clears up what I meant.

Had a discussion with a creationist today, as a matter of fact. She said, rather proud of herself, "If dinosaurs lived all those millions of years ago, why do we still find their bones? Wouldn't the bones have turned to dust long ago?"

I said, "They DID. Nobody has ever found a dinosaur bone. What we find are dinosaur FOSSILS,the impressions left behind in sediment after the bone has, as you say, turned to dust".

She did not understand what I was talking about, but what polite enough to say she appreciated my observations. It was clear enough, however, that they meant nothing to her--don't confuse creationists with facts.

Please get well soon.

I haven't always agreed with you, but I feel I've come to know you, and wish you all the best.

You've always been full of good energy, and that will serve you well now.

Good luck!

Loved this article. I've always loved Johnny Cash. Thanks.

More like this!

I really have to say...you sound like one of those twisted Holocaust deniers or something. These arguments are half baked, beside the point, or just plain stilted (Animal husbandry is a "slaughter not seen in nature"? Well, duh. 98% survival of young animals past the first half year is not seen in nature, either, but this is the typical survival rate of animals born on farms. We help them survive, so we can eat 70 or 80% of them later, which is STILL a lower mortality rate of young than is seen in nature! I'm a farmer, and I know).

There is no 100% vegetarian society (not even in India) and all societies have hunters and a number of those (like Inuit) are almost entirely meat consumption based. Eating meat has made the human race successful and may even be responsible for the fact that we walk upright. We do NOT have herbivore's teeth (gorillas are herbivores. Check the difference).

The 40 or so domesticated animal species are far and away the most successful on the planet. Biologists now suspect that the advantages of domestication may have, in some ways, been "chosen" by the animals themselves.

There may be excellent arguments for vegetarianism, but arguing that eating meat is "not natural" is definitely not one of them. It is very natural for us to eat meat. Whether or not we should continue to eat it in this modern day of massive resource depletion is another question entirely, and you'll sound more convincing if you stick to that more limited question.

Hate, hate, hate the new format. Please give us an option to use the old one. Please.

in the Reagan years, it was the alien version of "Amerika", and the unpoken enemies were the Soviets (not, I think, WWII era fascists, although a lot of details in the miniseries seemed to point in that direction. Most Americans in 1984 couldn't differentiate between Hitler and the Soviet Union anymore anyway).

This time around, the enemies appear to be people who fake I.D. papers to live in the country illegally (wonder who those might be?) and our own President. That should tell us something.

"V" is conservative fantasy porn. That's pretty much all.

OMG how awful for you. I'm afraid I would have had a breakdown on the spot. You're a courageous person. Please make sure that this weirdo who's checking up on you and your children is far, far away. Sounds like he's a little disappointed he didn't destroy your life, or maybe wants to feel, "hey, what I did wasn't so bad--she seems pretty fine now".

Ugh.