@Joel_Duff has written several blog posts about fossil evidence that flies in the face of young-earth constructs, especially when investigating the greater context beyond just the bones themselves, and this is another interesting one:
I enjoyed it partly because I had no idea there were ever such things as “bear-dogs” or that deer-like creature (dinosaurs get all the glory when it comes to extinct creatures, apparently!), but this paragraph near the end stood out to me too:
Unfortunately, fossil locations such as this one will either not be mentioned in the creationist literature or will be written about vaguely as being easily explained as an ice-age event that took place over just a few hundred years but the specific geological context of the fossils will not be mentioned. It is a hear-no-evil see-no-evil approach that has served Ham and his colleagues well for a long time. I don’t expect that will change anytime soon but I do feel for Christians that have grown up following YEC literature and are then exposed to places like this fossil site only to discover that creationist’ geology has ill-equipped them to explain the origin of these fossils.
This is very true, and these are the kinds of details I never heard about growing up. I hope that those who find this kind of information troubling will have the courage to look beyond AIG’s hand-waving (because it can be a difficult and painful thing to do at first), and will also keep in mind that the Naturalis Historia blog is one of many places where an honest exploration of the evidence is not treated as at all “threatening” to Christian faith.