Ganged up on? Please. Everyone's time is limited. I've had several very short nights because of doing this.

: Caf, you are splitting hairs here, as you were with whether 'factual and fictitious' means partly false or completely false. You are correct that most anthropologists now consider Neanderthal man specifically Homo Sapiens. My comparison was between Neanderthal man and HS as we know it (as you say, modern HS), back to the beginning of recorded history (6000 years ago, more or less). Please read my post again. The idea that they existed side-by-side is new to me, and if you have references from non-creationist sources, I'd like to see them. Unlike 'creationism', anthropology is always being updated. My understanding was that Neanderthal man developed around 75-85,000 years ago from ancestors going back to the Riss glacial stage about 150,000 years ago, and this would support the oldest artifacts found near Gotha, as we discussed. There is evidence of humanoid society in Europe back to about 700-750,000 years ago, but these are not believed to be ancestors of Neanderthal and HS, nor am I sure 'society' is even the right word. The Neanderthals were certainly socialized.

Essay, I didn't "split hairs", I responded to what you wrote. I can't assume you meant something other than what you wrote, nor assume that others will think you meant something other than what you wrote. You have said repeatedly that you choose the scientists, so you should get the science right. Classifying Neandertal as "homo sapiens neanderthalensis" goes back forty years or so, at least. What I said regarding Neandertal is not new or controversial, except for those points I mentioned as such. Of course as you say, anthropology is always being updated. When so much of a discipline is guesswork, and the foundation is highly subjective, constant updates (complete shifting of ground, not just additions or slight revisions) are necessary.

I'll do a little of your homework for you about Neandertal though. None of the links are creationist at all.
Try this LINK to 1999 Northern Illinois University article on Neandertal age, coexistence with MM, possible cross breeding, etc.

Try this LINK to a related article on the work of Erik Trinkhaus

Try this LINK to a general article on Neandertal, covering some past misconceptions and current controversies.

OK, just because it turned up in the search list, I've changed my minde and here's an article from an Australian creationistist site on Neandertal. Try to overlook whatever faith-based bias you assume the man might have, and consider his data, check his references, just as part of the picture. Try this LINK to an article on Neandertal by Marvin Lubenow.

: Also, you are correct that c-14 dating is not accurate back to 100,000 years ago. Here again, that is not what I said. I said that by the time there was not enough c-14 to measure at all, you would be back 100,000 years or more. The question here is not accuracy but recent vs. ancient origin. If you're going to try to show that the entire universe is less than 10,000 years old, as the Bible says, you're going to have to do more than nitpick.

It sure looked like what you said at the time, and I responded to what you seemed to say. The implication seemed to be that C-14 was a means of establishing age out to 100,000 years, and even the proponents don't say that. Surely the question here is in fact accuracy. Whether or not the methodology provides accurate results over particular age ranges is very much at issue. By the way, I'm actually not quite sure the Bible says the entire universe is less than 10,000 years old, but I'm pretty sure I won't do any good with that line of discussion.