@Anqua
Unfortunately, I lack a good english dictionary. Still, I doubt the meaning is restricted to petrified: wiktionary propose as second entry.
2. (paleontology) Any preserved evidence of ancient life, including shells, imprints, burrows, coprolites, and organically-produced chemicals.
The Wikipedia article start with (didn’t read through the whole article, I’m lazy after all):
Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the preserved remains or traces of animals (also known as zoolites), plants, and other organisms from the remote past
So here is what he claims in this post: fossil does not mean petrified, but preserved remains of creature. He’s at least partly right, and you can hardly claim his claim is ridiculous. At least, not without reading some of his other post, which shouldn’t be required from a quote site.
Let me be clear: yes, his claim as a whole is ridiculous; but it doesn’t appear from this quote alone.
So sure, it’s supersport and it’s fun he admits we should “stop trying to teach [him] things -- it's not working”. Still, when he says that in a sentence where his claim have some basis, it isn’t fundie enough to be made a quote.
Especially when it’s a quote by supersport. I mean, just wait a few minutes, he’ll write something worse.
[Edit: Okay, I have to admit his reaction misses the point, as he deals with fossil while the remark was about fossilisation. Still, fundie quote? Not by my standards.]
[Second edit: I really should answer the whole post at once. I just added some remarks about the fact that context should not be taken into account when publishing a quote.]
