A simple challenge for atheists

[bob96]

It's not my degree:
"its morphology (the Modern Aboriginal skull) could be described as archaic" (Jim Vanhollebeke - Paleoanthropologist)

So, did you read the entire article, or just stop at the point where you could dishonestly quote mine it? Because the full article goes into a bit more detail, and the person you're quoting comes to the conclusion that the ancestry of Australian native humans was different than previously thought, and older too; he cites numerous pieces of evidence to show that this is the case. At no point does he come to the conclusion that this skull is evidence against evolution. So, I guess you were lying, then? Or did you just stop reading three lines in for fear of seeing the man disagree with you?

Also, no comment on the rule breaking, then?

Edit: Oh, can I also mention that the quote you're using is thirteen years old, and not at all from a peer reviewed scientific work, so even if you weren't lying through your teeth, your source wouldn't be as good as you think it is.

Of course the statement about the skull being "described as archaic" would never be accepted in a peer reviewed journal. It was just his personal professional opinion.

"At no point does he come to the conclusion that this skull is evidence against evolution."

I never said he did.