"I've never met a creationist who descried science."

The refusal to believe the results of the massive amount of scientific research and the current interpretations of them is itself the descrying of science. In fact, this dimissing of the work of tens of thousands of dedicated people is almost contemptuous. If there was evidence in the rocks for a creator then science would recognise that and work with it. However, there isn't and science has reached a series of conclusions that, until new evidence is discovered, fit together are sit comfortably within the unifying theory of earth sciences, plate tectonics.

Science welcomes doubt. It relies on the questioning and testing of results and theories and as time moves on, so does our understanding and interpretations. But they are never fixed. Ever. Unlike creationists who have reached a conclusion and try to make the facts fit. For example:

"But for the sake of some who might not know, one would have expected that, if the HIGHER levels of rock had been changed into metamorphic rock, then the LOWER strata, being exposed to more heat and more pressure, would no longer be sedimentary, but would also be metamorphic."

No No NO! Rocks are metamorphosed by heat or pressure, or both. The intrusion of igneous rocks in the form of sills and dykes will metamorphose the local surrounding rocks but leave others unaltered. It has a name - contact metamorphism. But that's not really the argument, the trouble is any evidence I present to a creationist will not be taken on face value. For instance:

"Sugarfoot Jack, if I were to find a trilobite fossil in a Pleistocene deposit, wouldn't you tell me about "zombie taxa" and how fossils can be eroded out of older rock and thus be found in younger deposits?"

Zombie taxa, derived fossils, reworked deposits; happens all the time. For instance the river gravels of the Isle of Wight are replete with reworked fossils; I found a perfect microcaster on the cliffs some years ago. But this evidence means nothing, as I suspect creationists would argue they were placed there by the flood. The same flood that deposited the formation containing dinosaurs the river gravels sit unconformably on. But there is no evidence that these rocks were laid down by a single neocatastrophic event; if there was, that would be the current theory about how they came to be there.

"but it seems to me that if an octopus is mostly soft, that there has to be some explanation if it gets fossilized."

Pete, believe me that soft tissue preservation is explicable and not uncommon. I've got a cast of some Edmontosaurus skin on my desk here, taken directly from the fossil. My real point there was the article was woefully inaccurate, and in my opinion deliberately misleading and that is the product of a nasty little mind who intends to deceive to promote their own views. Very poor.

Steve: Much to my lasting regret I had to give up my degree a few years ago, although I will be restarting next month with the OU, and I've credit for my previous studies. I'm lucky in that I've been privileged to meet and spent time in the company of (including in the field) some excellent palaeontologists and they have always been extremely encouraging and generous with their knowledge. As for taphonomy, it's a fascinating subject and an area that rewards delving into. It's a subject I could become very interesting in as it tells us so much about the conditions of death and deposition of the organism that died.