I forgot. You haven't yet understood what a fossil is.

I'll wait a few years. I think I first heard of fossils when I was five. And it took until I was a teenager for me to understand them.

Fossil: n. An evil rock placed in the earth by satan to trick wholesome christians into abandoning their faith for the evils of science and homosexuality. [/sarcasm]

leauki posts:

That's just it..in view of the multitude of human fossils now discovered, and the completeness of the fossil record, the evidence supports my claim that the human body always looked the same. This is because human ancestry only goes back as far as Adam and Eve, the first two human beings.

So your assertion that the human body didn't look the same 100,000 years ago fits within the popular definition of evolutionary theory, namely it is nothing other than a guess or speculation and one that has not been able to hold up against repeated experimentation or in this case has not been proven in the fossil record. It certainly makes one wonder how it is that our youth are indoctrinated year after year with nothing more than evolutionary speculation financed by taxpayers money.

Perhaps, Leauki you are looking for, but haven't found, the same kind of fossils that Darwin described in his book, The Origin of Species, page. 293. "By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day. And these parent species, now generally extinct, have in their turn similiarly connect with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly if this theory be true, such have lived upon this Earth."  

Lula, 100K - 400K years ago the ancestors of humans looked like this and/or this. Both species have sufficient fossils to count as evidence. That fossil record traces even further back than that, but there you have it: clearly humanoid skeletons that are geographically connected to us, but are older and demonstrate clearly differing traits from any humans alive today.

STARSTRIKER 1[quote]Lula, 100K - 400K years ago the ancestors of humans looked like this and/or this. Both species have sufficient fossils to count as evidence. That fossil record traces even further back than that, but there you have it: clearly humanoid skeletons that are geographically connected to us, but are older and demonstrate clearly differing traits from any humans alive today.[/quote

  STARSTRIKER1,

I appreciate the two links from Wikipedia....this one below and the other one about Neanderthals. They show human skulls (not humanoid) and as to their age, we can't be sure as none of the dating methods are 100% accurate. Evolutionists claim they are from 125K to 400K years ago...yet, they could have been formed at the time of Noe's Flood about 5 or 6,000 years ago.

What do we know?

THAT.....In the theoretical ancestry of mankind, Evolutionists have imagined a time they call "Pre-historic" and teach about fossils of supposed apelike human ancestors they call "hominids".

THAT....no "humanoid" ancestor for man has ever been convincingly documented.  

Here's a part of the first link from Wikipedia.

Homo rhodesiensis Fossil range: Pleistocene
Skull found in 1921
Scientific classification
Binomial name
†Homo rhodesiensis Woodward, 1921

Homo rhodesiensis is a possible hominin species described from the fossil Rhodesian Man. Other morphologically-comparable remains have been found from the same, or earlier, time period in southern Africa (Hopefield or Saldanha), East Africa (Bodo, Ndutu, Eyasi, Ileret) and North Africa (Salé, Rabat, Dar-es-Soltane, Djbel Irhoud, Sidi Aberrahaman, Tighenif). These remains were dated between 300,000 and 125,000 years old.

Let's look at the first sentence. Homo rhodesiensis is a possible hominin species described from the fossil Rhodesian Man.

 

What do we now know of Rhodesian Man found in 1921? That the skull was discovered in a cave and that anthropologists and artists simply assumed it to be a half-ape/half man sort of creature and went about depicting it that way. Yet, later a competant anatomist examined it and found that the skull was just a normal human being. Further analysis reveals dental caries which modern diets tend to produce and also a hole through the skull made by a bullet or crossbow.

Let's look at the second paragraph and photo.

Another specimen^[1] "the hominid from Lake Ndutu" may approach 400,000 years old, and Clarke in 1976 classified it as Homo erectus. Undirect cranial capacity estimate is 1100 ml. Also supratoral sculus morphology and presence of protuberance as suggest Philip Rightmire : give the Nudutu occiput an apprence which is also unlike that of Homo Erectus but Stinger 1986 pointed that thickened iliac pillar is typical for Homo erectus. ^[2]

Replica of the skull

 As concerning the classification, Homo erectus.....we know that early on this classification included the evolutionary hoaxes, Java Man and Peking Man. At the time, becasue the skulls have prominent brow ridges similiar to the Neandertals, they were promoted as the "missing links" between apes and humans.

Anyway, turns out that the fossils identified under the classification Homo erectus show the brain size is within the range of people today and that they walked erect. Both morthology and associated archaelological/culture findings show Homo erectus to be fully human and even some evolutionists today agree that erectus should be included in homo sapiens.

Also some fossils found in rock layers were within the time span of modern human beings.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) are what becasue of their distinctive features evolutionists call the "cave men". But what has modern science told us of these features''' ...the stooped posture...the brow ridges....the bowed legs....turns out they are all bones of fully human people who were afflicted with the disease called rickets and arthritis.   

  

  

 

Actually carbon dating, while an actual SCIENCE, is not related to evolution.