"I don't quite see the logic here. First of all, I am not embarrassed at all."
--Just a bit of extraneous jargon to impress his equally misunderstood readers would be my guess :\
"Second, why does finding organisms previously thought to be extinct mean that the earth is young?"
--Well It doesn't have a direct correlation in favor of a younger age, though his logic, in knowing only the given information, leads him to believe that this is difficult to explain by geologic time scales and deposition -->
"Actually, it doesn't surprise evolutionists either. Why is Ken Ham telling his flock that it does?"
--Ham either doesn't care to know, or is looking for that answer from the evo's I guess. His logic given this information:
--This apparently leads him to question the possibility for all of the upper stratigraphy, being void of the remnant fossils to re-appear without a single geologic trace of this period of its extant Evolution. This is what he evidently deduced from his literature. Due to the reputation AiG carries, leaves me to doubt the claims veracity.
------------------