Creation/evolution3

[Tonus]

What they found under the sand are heavy stone foundations of former buildings.
In thoses cases that's pretty much all they found.

My point is that even those things are being found, because the technology for locating them is getting better and... no exodus.

Your artical shows a city built onto or carved out of a mountain like the city of Petra. Why did they find it? It was all built from stone like the foundations of the city's found under the sands.

That's actually a monastery from the 4th or 5th century. The article speaks of other ruins nearby, where they have found...

Fragments of stone tools, stone circles and lines on the ground, and even evidence of tombs
[...]Mason also saw corral-like stone formations called “desert kites,” which would have been used to trap gazelles and other animals.

The area may have mostly been a place where they dumped their dead, yet they bothered to create and use stone tools and tombs and other structures that held up over time.

Among the items found in the Sahara was a lot of pottery, some metal weapons and a large number of human skeletons.

You are saying that this massive number of people with its massive number of animals and massive number of supplies did not use pottery or stone or metal, or they somehow re-used them to such an efficient degree that not a single scrap of any of it remains. You are saying that they made no stone structures, at all, even though they spent 38 years trekking through a desert. That not a single one of probably hundreds of thousands of people who lived and died out there left a single fragment of bone or any other indicator that they were ever there. You seem to feel as if the extraordinarily large number of people and the very long time they would have spent in the desert are of no consequence, and I disagree. Then again, I don't need to find a way to explain their absence to support the story: I can judge using only what is (or in this case, isn't) there.