[Virginia-American]

So what conclusion can be drawn from the fact that the creationists are unable to decide whether H. habilis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, et al are human or non-human?

The conclusion that I draw is that they are clearly neither one nor the other, that they are in fact intermediate.

These aren't biologists with their funky assumptions who can't fit them in one bin or the other; these are creationists, who claim it can be done, but are in fact unable to do so. (Actually, they can, it's just that they don't agree!)

[Tribune7]

The conclusion that you can draw is that the matter is not concluded. It could be that H. erectus is human. It could be that he is not. It could be that he is intermediate. You don't know definitively.