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.
Well, I found the book where I learned about the four groups of fossils. Fossils, An Introduction to Prehistoric Life, by William H. Matthews (1962). In the chapter, How Fossils are Formed and Preserved, Matthews writes: "For convenience in classification, fossils are arranged into four major groups according to their method of preservation. These methods do not actually represent four distinct and seperate kinds of fossil-making; rather, they generally work in combination, several frequently being involved in the preservation of any given fossil."
The author goes on to name and describe the different classes and sub-classes, citing examples of combining of methods, etc. There's a nice photo of a Trachodon "mummy" in here.
"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."
If I were to teach a science class about fossils, I would tell them that fossils are the remains of life that existed in the past, portions thereof that have been captured in stone. I would describe the different classes of fossils and how different chemicals and minerals replace hard and soft tissues, as well as what environmental conditions are necessary for fossil formation.
Then, having done my utmost to present the evidence and facts about fossils, minus any philosophical interpretation thereof, I would leave it at that. If a student asked "how long ago", I would say that no one knows with any absolute certanity. There are several different theories which you can read about, here and here and here, etc., pointing out a balanced, understandable collection of uniformatarian and catastrophism books, articles and papers which the student could consult, thereafter drawing his own conclusions.
Depending upon the age of the student, I could talk some about how different assumptions effect the interpretation of data, but I'd have to weigh that on a case-by-case basis.
My beliefs concerning how and when they were formed are not relevant to primary and secondary classroom situations, because they merge physical evidence and demonstratable facts with philosophical interpretation. Those questions, I would consider to be, university, or at least, college level subjects. In those environments, a civil, no holds barred debate should be the rule of the day, as opposed to a mutual admiration society.
"There's an astonishing worldwide preponderance of evidence that they do." [Fossils demonstrating the succession of life].
Yes, that is what I was taught in school. I believed it too. Now, however, I look at the evidence and the facts, through older eyes, and from a different perspective. This latter perspective does not have an absolute answer for every possible question and neither does the former.
"Does your system explain that?"
Well, to a limited extent it does, but then that brings us back to the young earth/old earth, flood/no flood controversies, and their requsite assumptions and problems. The idea that large animal fossil beds are located in some areas, and not in others is answered by catastrophism, albeit not all that comprehensively, as it makes for even more questions, but at least it's an answer worth investigating, right along with the old mountains view.
"It isn't FR that's your problem; it's the whole world."
You know, in a way, that is the situation. It's roots, however, are theological, as I mentioned in an earlier post.