Edgar, welcome to the discussion. I won’t argue with you that there may be tears in the process as we see our cherished concordist interpretation fall to the evidence, but I assure you it doesn’t end in tears.
As for the fossil pattern predictions of YEC and PC compared to the actual fossil record:
(D. Lamoureux)
The actual fossil record shows an evolutionary sequence. Note that EC makes no prediction from the Bible because we reject scientific concordism. God accommodates his intended message using the pre-scientific understanding of the ancient world.
EC is the only tenable position for Christians willing to come to terms with the comparative genomic evidence for common ancestry. I confess it can be a difficult pill to swallow, shattering long-held convictions about what we think the Bible is teaching. It invokes charges of theological recklessness just as in the case of Galileo. In his time, everyone “knew” that the plain meaning of scripture was an immovable earth and geocentric universe. Do you still stumble over the biblical texts that reveal an ancient cosmology in the Bible? No, you interpret the texts in a way that coheres with your modern cosmology, as we all do.
There are a range of EC views on historicity and how these chapters ought to be interpreted in context. Ancient Near East literature (which pre-dates Genesis) helps us calibrate the genre and understand that early Genesis is a story of origins for the Hebrews. Most of this material was unavailable to those who preceded us in church history.
This may seem “just absurd” to you, but remember that the argument from incredulity is not often a reliable guide to truth. Scripture is true in all that it teaches but it’s our responsibility to interpret it faithfully. While Genesis was written for us, it was not written to us.