one of the problems i see that is also fatal to evolution and its chronology is the depth of the artifacts claimed as proof for evolution. I was reading the book 'Old Testament Times' by R.K. Harrison and i came across this tidbit on pg. 34, which got me thinking:
"The excavations of professor M.E.L. <allowan at Ninevah in 1931 penetrated the mound to a depth of 90, where it was found that the lowest levels of Assyrian culture gave place to the remains of pre-historic villages. The wooden huts of this early time period had been reduced to gragments, and mingled with this debris were found broken pieces of crude,hand-made pottery, bearing roughly devised patterns by way of markings"
now if they had to dig 90 feet just to go back a few thousand years how deep should the fossils and other evolutionary 'proof' be if dated to 50 million years?
since fossils are found at depths less than archaeological evidence for the history of the world, then evolutionists have a major problem on their hands.
then one must consider the condition of such artifacts; lying in the dust & the weather for so many millions of years and since a few thousand years almost thoroughly destroys most evidence how is it that artifacts were preserved almost intact for a extremely longer period of time?
plus we must consider where these artifacts were found. with all the archaeological digs in the world it would stand to reason that we would have found a consistency of evolutionary evidence in every site but we do not. in fact, we find the opposite.
again though we will hear the same excuses, such as the length of time yadayadayada which continues to stretch the credibility of the theory to a non-existent point (if it had any at all).
