Lucy and Secular Humanism

Also, before going on to Neaderthal depictions I'd like you to honestly consider the facts.1. Haeckel faked his drawings.2. Hackel's drawings were exposed over 130 years ago.3. Evolutionists nevertheless used his drawings to the point that until a few years ago they were included in almost all biology textbooks.4. A paper in 1998 that showed the drawings to be faked was "news" supposedly despite critics of evolution pointing out the drawings were faked long before that, despite the fact they were known to be fakes long before that. I am not saying, of course, that everyone in the evolutionist community deliberately use faked evidence, but it does raise the question of credibility. Why should we accept the scientific community as far as evolutionary theory when they perpetuated a fraud for 130 years.5. In fact, evolutionists still seem to use this fraud, as I showed on the site that uses the drawings "that are based on Haeckel's drawings", and not to be mean about it, but the reluctance here among evolutionists to just come clean and admit, yep, they were frauds, and the fraud was used by evolutionists for over a 100 years, and it was wrong. The fact you are having such a hard time admitting that, or even unaware of that, and are challenging me on it, speaks volumes to me about the nature of evolutionism.

Here is an example of hard proof via X-rays showing how evolutionists have exagerrated the features, specifically manufacturing a flat forehead and projecting jaw which did not actually exist in the skull. Depictions and recreations of this Neanderthal skull by evolutionists are false. Neanderthal Children’s Fossils | Answers in Genesis Why should we, in light of evidence showing evolutionists exagerrating ape-like features, perhaps do to their preconditioning to do so as the article states and not deliberately, well, why should we accept the claims of more ape-like features in Neanderthals?