I'm an OEC.What I find dissatisfying about the article is that the possibility of instant fossils for miraculous purposes is intended to undermine the general reasonableness of taking fossilisation as indicating a long process.Also, it is purely speculative that the Cana wine contained fossilised yeast organisms - presumably their presence is not necessary for a taste experience of wine or a condition of a solution being wine.It does seems odd to me that YEC requires fossils (and seemingly progressive fossilisation) be wholesale explained as miraculous.
"It does seems odd to me that YEC requires fossils (and seemingly progressive fossilisation) be wholesale explained as miraculous." - AMCThat's reading a bit much into the article. The point of the article is that miracles sometimes duplicate the result of natural processes, and therefore, the appearance of process is not necessarily an argument against miracles.And YEC does not require that all fossils be miraculous. That is a huge leap from what the article actually said. All YEC requires re: fossil formation is the very natural proof we have that fossilization can happen rapidly. It's OEC that is in a pinch there, since no one has observed fossil formation taking millions of years: that is pure theory. On the other hand, creation museums (for instance) routinely display fossils that were formed very quickly (wristwatches, fedoras, etc.)