And Bex, I was intrigued by this citation from Yahya of the 1.7 million year old hut found by Louis Leakey. I know a little about archaeology and this would have been a major find.

The truth, however, is rather more mundane. Duane Gish first made this assertion about the hut in 1985, ignoring Leakey's own thoughts on the find, and Yahya has done the same. Louis Leakey claimed that it may have been no more than a windbreak, and so rudimentary that he saw no difficulty in believing that Homo habilis could have made it:

Quote
"The recent discovery of a rough circle of loosely piled stones on the living floor at site D.K. I, in the lower part of Bed I, is noteworthy. ... It seems that the early hominids of this period were capable of making rough shelters or windbreaks, and it is likely that Homo habilis may have been responsible." (Leakey et al. 1964)


Additionally, most scientists now agree that the circle is not an artifact. It is only a rough arrangement, and could have just as easily have been formed by water or other natural forces. (Johanson and Shreeve 1989; Tattersall 1993)

So much for a hut which is "so modern that today's humans could have made it," or whatever nonsense was claimed about it by creationists.

I'm intrigued and fascinated by achaeological finds. I am particularly interested in studying British pre-history. So I find it particularly annoying when people misrepresent the facts to fit their own agenda, and also when these misrepresentations are repeated by people who do not attempt to investigate their validity. How do you investigate? You look at legitimate scientific sources. Unless you honestly believe the possibility that all scientists are part of a major conspiracy of deception, then finding the same information from a variety of such sources is, I've found, a pretty good indicator of the real facts. It isn't hard if you really want to do it.