[VadeRetro]

Neanderthal fossils have been turning up since the early 19th century. There are many, many specimens. Who's running around altering all the occlusions of all the jaws for all those fossils for all that time? What about all the other not-quite-human features such as the rib cage and upper/lower leg length ratios? (Many complete skeletons exist.)

It's rather easy to reject evidence if you're allowed to just allege fraud and walk away.

[exmarine]

Neanderthal fossils have been turning up since the early 19th century. There are many, many specimens. Who's running around altering all the occlusions of all the jaws for all those fossils for all that time? What about all the other not-quite-human features such as the rib cage and upper/lower leg length ratios? (Many complete skeletons exist.)

There have been so many frauds, paleos aren't even believable any longer. They approach a fossil with the presuppostion that all life evolved, therefore all fossil evidence MUST be interpreted in that light regardless of whether there is credible evidence that points in another direction.

The Neanderthals were humans. There is no evidence that says otherwise. There are interpretations that say otherwise, but one must consider the biases before believing such evidences.

[TexasBlues]

It's rather easy to reject evidence if you're allowed to just allege fraud and walk away.

Very good point and the creationists of which I am one would do well to meet some of the arguments more head on.

In reponse though I would ask the same question. Why do the evolutionists discount the crucifiction and resurrection of Christ as myth and fraud when there are so many eyewitness accounts dated within 30 years of the event. The normal evolutionist response to that is a fair "prove it" response. The creationist then points to various Christian books and ancient manuscripts to which the evolutionist replies that the authors are all ignorant and using poor scholarship.

And so the argument continues...