No, you didn't. You followed the Creationist Arguments link from the TalkOrigins page already linked for you, lifted the creationist arguments . . .
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this fossil is that it was found about sixty feet underground at the far end of a shaft in a lead and zinc mine. He was either mining lead and zinc himself or was in the mine shaft at a time when lead and zinc were being mined by other humans -- indicating a very high degree of civilization and technology. Not surprisingly, many evolutionists report that Rhodesian Man was found in a cave. While not an outright lie, one has to consider if calling a mine shaft a cave is not a crude attempt to minimize the technical abilities of ancient humans.. . . and ignored the refutations already sitting there.
There is no deception. As the original paper on Rhodesian Man (Woodward 1921) clearly states, the fossils were found in a cave, which was found in a mine. Lubenow's claim that the Rhodesian Man was mining lead and zinc is one of his more spectacular mistakes. No evolutionist has ever claimed that Rhodesian Man was mining. Why would they? The mine is of recent (19th century) origin, and Rhodesian Man was found in it along with remains of other animals (perhaps they were mining too?).Amusing and revealing that you would so transparently lift a discredited argument and then claim it as your own without credit to the hapless bozo you stole it from.
Yup, only fakes lift arguments. Only fakes try to prove their point by building strawmen out of the silliest things said by opponents. Only fakes try to discredit all opponents by using the most stupid arguments from some opponents. Lastly, only fakes do not source such a blatant misrepresentation of the oppositions arguments. You may have won one point through trickery, however that was only the fourth point against Rhodesian Man being a homo sapiens. You already had 3 strikes and you and your phony skull were out.
Since you seem to be making a habit lately of not answering to the posts you respond to but to other posts so that people cannot follow the thread, here are the other 3 strikes from post#1953:
1. It is from an unsigned article in TalkOrigins, not exactly what one calls a source of scientific excellence.
2. Even this author says that the dating can be anywhere from 200,000 years ago to 125,000 years ago. The earliest date for homo sapiens is 100,000 years ago.
3. This is by the admission of the author a "re-classified" fossil, it was homo rhodensis, not homo erectus before the evolutionists needed an erectus to show continuity to homo sapiens after Neanderthal was blown out of the water.