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.

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.