When you "estimated" the number of fossils in one geological formation you introduced my right to respond with estimated human populations, which is not a game and is based on the science of math.
Estimations on human population have nothing to do with fossil remains. you rebutt apples with oranges.
You post you do not want to get into evolution and then post a pic of how evolutionists think a "cave man" would look like.
It is not how evolutionists think he would look like, it is a re-creation based on fossilized remains. the Bottom line is there is an abundance of man like creature remains, who aren`t quite human, and who vey crude stone tools.
Everything you have posted regarding geological formations is used to support evolution and an old age for the earth, which opened the door to introduce dating formulae since the dates assigned to those geological periods use "c" as a defined constant. Also what science considers a fact is usually a theory that is not really a "fact". Those geological periods and geological formations are named and sated as a convenience in explaining evolution took billions of years, which again brings us back to how dates are determined. There is no way you can discuss an old age for the earth without discussing "c".
There you go again, we still have more pre-historic fossils and vegetation than could have existed at one time and there is absolutely no dating involved here; what sense does it make to bring it up? You are skirting the issue.