Thanks, I do try to excell at whatever I do. Mediocrity is so pedestrian, don't you agree?
I answered the way I did because if, for instance, I felt an individual didn't have a clue what they were talking about, I'd ask some basic questions, to see what level of knowledge they were working with. By the way, did I get the four categories of fossils right? My archaeology books are boxed up in my garage right now so, outside of a web search (which sometimes, more often than not, ends up being more time-consuming than it's worth -- see "Omphalos" below), I can't confirm the information.
I think the post I was working on yesterday, when the browser blew up, would have clarified the meaning of the poorly-worded expression you called into question, but alas, it's gone. The HTML page I mentioned I'd compile is about 50% complete, however. When it's done, I'll post a link to it for you and then you can see just how demented I really am :-)
Additionally, it was a little difficult to divine your meaning from the phrase: "Not the "Omphalos" business", which is why I didn't address it in my reply.
So, in short, the fossil, to me, implies Divine Judgement, which is meaningless to people who have eliminated the divine from the equation.
When I was younger, fossils told me of the journey of life, from simple bacteria-like creatures of ages past, to the emergence of Man from his primitive roots. A bit like that drawing that still hangs in school classrooms across the country, depecting the ascent of Man.
As to rejecting "mainstream science", I guess what you mean is what evolutionists make of fossil data, and yes, I do reject the inference that fossils demonstrate a succession of life. As I said above, when I believed that, I was young and no one had taught me any different. It seems, at least if the commentary on FR is any indication, the only way to be considered "mainstream", is to subscribe to evolutionary thought.
As for Omphalos, what do they have to do with this? Or were you perhaps meant something more esoteric, or archaeologocal? It's context-dependant. Maybe this is a vocabulary test? You're going to have too be more specific because He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him (Prov.18:13), and I've all too often assumed a meaning which ended up being totally different than the originator had in mind.
Your four types ("calcitic, aragonitic, siliceous and chitinous") look to me like shell types, not types of fossils. Many fossils are just impressions in ancient mud, hardened under pressure, with no trace of the original materials left. Some information, maybe the outline of a skeleton remains, but no animal trace.
So, in short, the fossil, to me, implies Divine Judgement, which is meaningless to people who have eliminated the divine from the equation.
All I'm asking you to do is tell me what you're telling me. If we're supposed to be teaching it in science classes, it ought to make sense.
I do reject the inference that fossils demonstrate a succession of life.
There's an astonishing worldwide preponderance of evidence that they do. There was nothing much more complex than a bacterium for almost 3 billion years. Cells with nuclei appear about 1.2 billion years ago, IIRC. Multicellulars appear last week, mammals the day before yesterday, humans about five minutes ago. OK, I exaggerate slightly, but only slightly.
In the Appalachians where I live, it is impossible to find a dinosaur fossil. Why is that? It is impossible to find a fossil ground sloth. Why is that? It is impossible to find a fossil mammoth or any other kind of mammal.
I won't keep you in suspense. These mountains are too old. They were already wearing away by the Permian/Triassic Extinction, when the last of the trilobites died off. The topmost sediments, the first thing below the topsoil that you hit when you dig, are older than any dinosaurs.
Does your system explain that?
It seems, at least if the commentary on FR is any indication, the only way to be considered "mainstream", is to subscribe to evolutionary thought.
FR is about as backwards as any part of the world can still be in 2002. That's one of the things I don't like about FR. It isn't FR that's your problem; it's the whole world.