Hahahaha, I've got no common sense? Right, thanks for letting me know. Anyways, yes, off course humanoid indicates a form, shape or whatever and that's exactly what I've meant. (You can turn it around anyway you wish. A gull is a bird, a bird can also be a gull,
off course depending a bit on what bird you've spotted.). If it looks 100% exactly the same, also being bipedal and walking straight like us, only certain proportion differences, then infact when it would have been modern bones(no fossils) and they were mixed up, you would not even see the difference and won't doubt it to be human.
You've also simply ripped it out of context. I've said that because of the older human or
at least humanoid fossils I doubted that Adam and Eve where the first humans.
It's pretty much obvious to me that those fossil bones are from humans.
But uhm so you dare to call aborinals not human? Boy ow boy, don't go that route. Yes, they have morphological different features, well there you go, evidence that humans can be humanoid, yet have distinctive features aswell.
Quote:
Oh no, kangaroos have skin like us. Creationism is shaking in its pants.
You must have a pretty hairy skin then. Infact, leather manufacturers claim the kangaroos skin is quite unique in a way. 
Cheers
