No the point that website is trying to make is that when neanderthals were initially described the ape-like features were accentuated, making it appear as a transitional species. This is what the website is suggesting was fraudulent, since science has apparently had to back-track as new evidence has come to light which puts neanderthals much more similar to us. Certainly most creationist websites you go to class neanderthals as human.
So you are disagreeing with this website and agreeing with the initial findings of science based on that first discovery in 1909. If you disagree with the websites findings why are you using it, and why should we even bother reading it, when it does not reflect your views? How many other arguments in that website do you disagree with? Would it not have been easier to simply post your own views on the subject rather than linking to this website, since it now gives the appearance that you will agree with anything that questions evolution, even if the arguments also contradict your own position. This is what I find most sad, when a creationist announces that evolution is all a fraud and trots out the same tired old examples, some of them not even frauds, showing they have put no thought into it and are simply regurgitating what they have read.
™ Version 4.2
