They actually use both arguments jestingly proposed here - that large animals were carried in their young forms, and that they only brought "archetypal" animals which then diversified into all the modern species afterwards. There are a lot of other fallacies used to shore up this nonsense, examples of which can be found in earnest here - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

Notice that they also ignore issues of animal behaviour. For example, many animals learn rules and socialization from their parents and herd, so only bringing a few babies screws them up royally. And some animals have extremely restrictive ecological requirements, meaning you can't just throw them in a box for 40 days and expect they'll be okay.

Worse, most biblical apologists are even more ignorant of botany than they are of zoology. Not every plant on Earth can be toted around as a convenient seed in a sack, nor could they all have be dispersed at the Ark landing site and thrived. Guess it's time to add another miracle to the equation...

"You're all right" except for RealLame, who posted while I was composing. Amazing how he feels the need to comment on every single topic, yet is unable to actually stay on topic.

Oh, right, troll. Forgot for a moment that they're the same as fundamentalists, shutting out the real world and pounding their pulpit of nonsense instead.

What's the sound of one lip flapping?

Has there ever been a larger collection of letters printed in baby's blood on the flayed skin of saints? I imagine some archive would love to house these missive, if the scent of brimstone could be cleansed away first.

Quite a liberal, progressive sentiment, that. Why not take it one step further and say she doesn't even have a soul until Allah bestows it as a wedding present?

Oh I know, there are just as many Xian fundies over here with the same stick up their posteriors about women. What appalls me in both cases is that so many women go along with it, joyfully collaborating in their own oppression. (Not that I lay all blame on women, but come on, if you're the oppressed, rise up. You can't count on your oppressors to do it for you.)

I'm so damn tired of modern barbarity, with a veneer of sophistication over its primtive heart. And I'm tired of applauding people for being 1% progressive while remaining 99% regressive. We don't have the luxury of slow centuries any more to make this a better world. With the coming ecological and resource-based crises, and our out-of-control population expansion, we're going to have to get truly civilised damn soon, or there won't be any future for us to take patient steps into.

Debra Dickerson once again is given free range to hate other black women, under the guise of sanctimoniously knowing what's best. Fortunately I'm used to her MO and knew to stop reading once I hit this line:

Fetishizing large rumps ... is, of course, no better or worse than fetishizing plastic blimp-breasts, except that the latter could be considered safer.

So a naturally large rear is "no better" than a sack of toxic chemicals inserted into the body via an invasive surgical procedure that damages tissues and deadens nerves? Indeed, in Debra's mirror universe, expensive mutilation is to be preferred over natural gifts, since she actually has the effrontery to call it "safer".

I'm truly at a loss as to why a progressive publication continues to allot space to this hateful creature. I can only imagine that she has become "The Black Paglia", a ranting hypocrite with some distant credibility who is retained because they generate so many letters (which equal page views, ergo ad dollars).

Refuse to. Don't write about her ever again.

EVER. AGAIN.

I almost never shout in all-caps online, but seriously, this warrants it.

As others have pointed out, she won't plague us with her meaningless celebrity if you stop giving her press. So stop already. It's going to happen eventually, it always does, so why not lead the pack and give up the habit now?

Anyone who gives a fuck what this nonetity does is an even more worthless human than she is. Salon doesn't need those people as an audience, and hopefully will never have them as one. So you can stop insulting your existing audience's intelligence and sophistication any time now.

To the people who are desperately trying to spin this as being relevant for other reasons, like jurisprudence or cultural relevance or some vast Freudian template, I call bullshit. There are a lot of other cases in America, cases you will never hear about, which expose the deeper issues here in a more meaningful and complex way.

This is voyeurism, populism, and celebrity-chasing, regardless of the gloss it's given. It is psychological pornography for the unexamined-life set. And it is a desperate attempt to construct mythology without employing heroes or heroines.

In the end, that's the only genuine takeaway from this: America has become so hollow that it is now trapped in its own meta-emptiness.

At this point I don't give a toss what any candidate on either side of the aisle has said. I only care what they've done. Words cost nothing to expend in the political game, deeds cost everything. So I don't particularly care if Bloomberg "came to praise Caesar, not to bury him" at his own party's convention. That's what politicians do for the sake of appearance, after all.

Frankly I'm willing to vote out of party lines if it means electing someone who Gets Shit Done (TM), rather than the usual porkhanders who just make more shit. If it comes down the DLC (Dedicated Loser Commission) forcing Hillary on me and the cons running whatever pedigreed felon they pick, then I'll vote third party without skipping a beat.

Death to the two party system! Death to the Electoral College! Death to videodrome! Long live the new flesh!