Another example of creationists/IDists never having searched for and found a humanoid fossil, never having made laboratory measurements or done X-ray analyses, never having worked with dating technology, never have written a peer-reviewable scientific paper, and yet they come up with new classifications!
All the creationists/IDists do is move words around to try to justify their faith beliefs. It is like the little tiles on refrigerators, where you move them around to make new cute phrases. The above 'article' from a well-known apologetics site has nothing to do with objective science or real data.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html
"Until 1964, Australopithecus remains had been found in Africa, but remains of the oldest representative of the genus Homo had been recognized only in Asia. In that year, however, Louis Leakey, Phillip Tobias, and John Napier announced the new species Homo habilis, or "handy man". They had to redefine the genus to accommodate this oldest form.
The OH 7 mandible is shown at the top right. In the 1960s, many researchers argued that Homo habilis was not a valid species, and that the fossils attributed to H. habilis were really members of other species. But with the discovery of KNM ER 1470, acceptance of Homo habilis became universal. In hindsight, this seems strange since ER 1470 is now considered to belong to a species distinct from H. habilis. There is much debate as to the number of species that existed in Homo 2 million years ago, and KNM ER 1470 is now assigned to the species Homo rudolfensis. The name Homo habilis is reserved primarily for the Olduvai material and several other specimens. The OH 62 partial skeleton of a female H. habilis provides another interesting twist in the debate about early members of the genus Homo."
And scientists just keep changing the rules. Were they human or were they not? But I'm willing to keep an open mind. Very interesting article.
Your hobby?
LOL