Have you actually looked at the link I provided? Most of these skulls are remarkably complete. Look up Turkana Boy. Most of his skull and entire body are complete. You also might want to look up what your creationist leaders have said about these finds and also why much of what they have claimed is wrong. (Gish, for example, points out similarities and ignores huge differences.) They also clearly disagree as to what they think is ape and what they think is human, despite your interesting claim that the differences should be obvious. If they are, then why don't you answer RAZD's question about how you would classify these skulls?

If I see any indication here that a creationist is willing to look at this evidence and deal with it, rather than dismiss it, I think I'll eat my socks. The thing is, if you're making all these claims that evolution is nonsense and that creationism should be taught in schools, you must deal with it. Science is evidence-based and you have to explain things like these fossils if you're going to claim any scientific basis at all to your ideology. That's why creationist leaders have made an attempt to do so, which as RAZD said has rather amusingly resulted in a public demonstration of how they are unable to tell the "obvious" difference between an ape and a human -- species which, according to them, were never any more similar to each other than they are now.

So can we expect something else here for once other than the perpetually unsubstantiated and rather unlikely "scientists are liars" and "it's all fake", or are these unrealistic expectations?