That's what I've been saying but you insist on arguing it.

That still has nothing to do with the veracity of the Big Bang theory, even if your argument is one focusing on temporal aspects.

It's latin for "upright man".  Don't be so sophomoric.

A skeleton of someone who has severe arthritis:

and a skeleton of Homo erectus:

The morphological differences are obvious even to a layman.

The most prevalent morphological difference between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens would be the overall size and shape of the body structure.  Going down into more detailed parts the first recognizable difference is the skull.

erectus has a very distinct brow ridge called a suborbital torus, not to mention the distinctive jaw and the shape of the teeth are intermediary between Australopithecines and Homo sapiens.  The cranial case of erectus is only about 70-75% that of anatomically modern humans.

Erectus had much denser leg bones than we do as well as the fossils indicating that most were on average around 5’ – 5’ 5” in height.  A more narrow pelvis than sapiens and long femoral necks.

Three or four hundred years" yeah, that's the ticket!

Air bubbles in amber shows nearly a over 30% more oxygen than there is today. Also the layer of water above the atmosphere would have doubled, maybe even tripled air pressure! This would also help with the age difference. This also explains how the mighty Brontosaurus ( who had nostrils the size of a horse! ) could have even breathed! Explain that with your theory if you don't mind. It is a PROVEN fact that like your nose and ears ( which are really made of cartilage ) the eyebrow ridges DO NOT stop growing until you die! Even your other bones continue to grow as your muscles grow, ask any body builder. I am sorry but they most certainly do "continue to grow" whether you like it or not!

Wow.  Let's try a different tack, since I'm out of my element on the science end -- compared to SolidSquid and Deano, anyway.

Faith Diver... why do you find it plausible that with the exception of a handful of people, the entire scientific community thinks all of what you're saying is utterly ridiculous?

Now, I'm not trying to use any sort of number or authority arguments here.   This isn't your David and Goliath stuff -- not even remotely analogous to a fair fight, or one theory against a community resistant to change.  There is no contest, no controversy.  Nothing.  Only crackpots and true believers think what you've been saying is true.  Crackpots because they're crackpots.  True believers because they can't acknowledge the doubt they know they have (but can't acknowledge).

So I'm just asking an innocent question with no idea that it proves anything in and of itself.  What is it that makes you think your sources are right, and EVERYONE ELSE is wrong?