Apparently.
On this thread, Liberty Wins mischaracterized the status of Australophithecus in science. Lumped it with Piltdown Man.
Called on that, he tried to justify it with a misleading 1971 Richard Leakey quote from before the discovery of Lucy and at any rate referring to A. robustus. (Leakey has since made it absolutely clear he thinks Lucy and the other gracile australopithecines were bipedal.)
Why can't a creationist be a man and at least admit what anyone can see anyway? Liberty was yapping about "evo hoaxes" when his own post was the hoax. Two hours later, crickets chirping.
Why is it always like this? The silent slink-off, or the endless Dummy Dance?
And the answer is: How else do you show up back again dumb as a stump with the same stuff? If creationists threw away an argument after it was discredited, we wouldn't HAVE these threads.
There are a number of scientists who think Australophithecus may have been mistakenly labeled, especially right after being discovered.
The reason I listed it with the other fossil "mistakes," was that it was initially trumpeted to the world as "the missing link," and still is by the popular press.
Part of the problem with the evolutionists' credibility is that, the paleos continually get excited about a presumed hominid fossil find, but 20 years later it gets re-classified as not quite human enough.
Is Australophithecus your candidate for the much-searched-for, all-important ancestor of man?