Well I notice that Bob has already decided to ignore significant evidence in that he assumes that the "Flood" is responsible for fossils, and that the fossil is not related to humans. Bob's answer depends entirely on presuppositions that are contradicted by the evidence.
Tom on the other hand seems to be simply uninformed in that he goes against the likely evolutionary interpretation. Such a fossil would not necessarily be interpreted as a human ancestor. It would be compared with the other fossil evidence we have to see where it fits in - and almost certainly it would be interpreted as simply sharing a more recent common ancestor with humans than with modern apes. Which is of course where the evidence does point.
™ Version 4.2