"Rhodesian Man", Homo sapiens (archaic) (was Homo rhodesiensis) Discovered by a laborer in 1921 at Broken Hill in Northern Rhodesia (now Kabwe in Zambia) (Woodward 1921). This was a complete cranium that was very robust, with large brow ridges and a receding forehead. Estimated age is between 200,000 and 125,000 years. The brain size was about 1280 cc. (Creationist arguments)
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this fossil is that it was found about sixty feet underground at the far end of a shaft in a lead and zinc mine. He was either mining lead and zinc himself or was in the mine shaft at a time when lead and zinc were being mined by other humans -- indicating a very high degree of civilization and technology.
Now, let's look at the so-called proof.
1. It is from an unsigned article in TalkOrigins, not exactly what one calls a source of scientific excellence.
2. Even this author says that the dating can be anywhere from 200,000 years ago to 125,000 years ago. The earliest date for homo sapiens is 100,000 years ago.
3. This is by the admission of the author a "re-classified" fossil, it was homo rhodensis, not homo erectus before the evolutionists needed an erectus to show continuity to homo sapiens after Neanderthal was blown out of the water.
Now Vade, anywhere, with three strikes you are out. However, the best is yet to come:
4. "He was either mining lead and zinc himself or was in the mine shaft at a time when lead and zinc were being mined by other humans". Now this is why this article, this author and TalkOrigins are a total joke. There was absolutely no metallurgy 125,000 years ago. There was no metallurgy 50,000 years ago. There were no mines then at all. There were no cities, there was no civilization. In other words, either the dating is totally bogus, the fossil is a complete fake, or this was some poor soul which got thrown down a mineshaft a few thousand years ago. Whatever the answer, this is not an ancestor of homo sapiens.
Recall that I predicted that you would continue to argue gaps until your gaps were smaller than the error bars in the dating of the skulls. We have arrived.
Most people don't know there is a gap in non-Neanderthal hominid fossils. But you and I know that our fossil series is made of discrete fossils, don't we, and however you date them, there are gaps between them.
But this proves what exactly?