No it's not. Your saying it is does not make it so. Your reaching pal.
On one hand the evolutionists say that the fossil record proves evolution,
No. Evolutionists say that the Evolution is the best explanation for the fossil record so far.
... on the other hand they say that anything could have been related to anything else and the bones can't show the relationship.
What? No they don't! No one is saying anything could be related to anything and bones can't show the relationship. Again you are just stating your own misconceptions as to what Evolutionists are saying.
No. Evolutionists say that the Evolution is the best explanation for the fossil record so far."
Not according to your statements. You said that a labrador may end up as the ancestor to an otter in post#250. Clearly your statement means that it is impossible to trace evolution through fossils. It really agrees with some of the statements I have made: that the fossil record does not show enough about a species to be certain of who its ancestors and descendants are. It also agrees with my statement that paleontologists totally misuse fossils to prove whatever they want.