Not exact matches
They have
articles and studies done
by scientists that back up the
creationist story.
I went to the Answers in Genesis Web site and found an
article about how these recent findings «should in no way faze
creationists» because «the fossil does not resemble a human skeleton,» because it «was found in two parts,» and because the fossil's lack of a grooming claw and toothcomb «are easily explained
by variation with a kind.»
I know of only one other
creationist discussion of the Dmanisi skeletons, in an
article by Answers in Genesis (AIG)(scroll down to the 2nd item).
He seems to have just swallowed a
creationist meme whole from the Institute for Creation Research, specifically an
article by their «science writer» Brian Thomas.