There's another important point to be made. Because of the public's interest in human origins, the differences and arguments about it are given a lot of attention in the press. The primary players are a combination of researcher, showman and tough competitor. They all claim their own finds to be the most likely human ancestor, and they denigrate the findings of other researchers.
For this reason, were the details behind the discovery of Lucy as shoddy and flimsy as what you've been told, other paleontologists would have brought this out and discredited Lucy long before the creationists. In their desire to put the worst spin possible on Lucy, creationists have gone far beyond anything that could be considered true or honest.
NosyNed alluded to this, too. It's hard to understand how it is that such a large amount of misrepresentation and dissembling eminates from the devoutly religious creationists, on this topic and many others.
My own thoughts on this are that creationists are certain in their hearts that evolution is wrong, in which case the details of how it is wrong are unimportant to them. If the stories about Lucy at creationist websites are full of lies and distortion, they reason, what does it matter? The Bible says that God created man, and therefore Lucy must be a fraud, we just don't yet know the details of how she is a fraud.
But if for no other reason than simple integrity, it is important to make sure what you claim is true. Whether Lucy is a fraud or not (and there's no evidence she is, I hasten to add), the tales told at creationist websites cast a very dim light on what in other regards is one of the world's great religions.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
