No, we're not looking at the *entire spectrum* of the fossil record. It's not that complete. What we're looking at is probably more like this..... 
...and then guessing to fill in what we don't have fossils of.
No but science can look at fossil records and trace the evolutionary development of a horse, for example. Or a bear, or finches or moths, etc., etc. Are they all wrong? If they are, then what is it that they're looking at? Or when science identifies homo habilis or homo neaderthalensis or other fossils that they believe traces man's evolution, what are those? Were they created in the Garden of Eden as well? If so, what happened to them?
Define "evolution"? Do you mean adaptation to environment within the kinds God created? Or are you suggesting that God made birds from lizards and watched in awe as they grew feathers and learned to fly by trial and error?
I'm talking about the entire spectrum of the fossil record. What are we looking at there?
It depends on their deductions from the evidence. If they deduce that man is evolved from some lower life form, then they are wrong. Any Christian would have to come to that conclustion. The whole premise of Christianity is based upon the fact that because God created man, that Man has a duty to God. If man is evolved and is not a special creation, then sin is illusory and Christianity is pointless. Why did Christ die? Did Christ die so that rocks can be forgiven for sinning against God?
Or when science identifies homo habilis or homo neaderthalensis or other fossils that they believe traces man's evolution, what are those?
Those are dry bones. IIRC Neandrathal Man was a Man with some vitamin deficiencies. Homo Habilis was not. There is no evidence that man evolved from Homo Habilis. None. It is an extrapolation based on a presumption that man was not created and that the only "natural" explanation for the existence of man is that he must have evolved from an amoeba.
Were they created in the Garden of Eden as well?
Who? Neandrthals? Nobody was in the Garden but Adam and Eve
If so, what happened to them?
They died.
I'm talking about the entire spectrum of the fossil record. What are we looking at there?
Show me where evolution can explain the development of complex organs and eyesight and flight? The only thing the fossil recod contains is basically the development of BONES and SHELLS. Nothing in the fossil record suggests how the stuff inside the shells and outside the bones managed to keep those bones and shells alive and make those bones and shells see and hear and walk and fly and think and build and recreate. Quite frankly the only explanation is supernatural. There is no natural explanation for life or for its utter complexity. But anyone who takes that position is automatically considered a kook.
Well I guess that makes me a kook.
No, we're not looking at the *entire spectrum* of the fossil record. It's not that complete. What we're looking at is probably more like this.....
...and then guessing to fill in what we don't have fossils of.