Difference between revisions of "Talk:Neanderthal"
Stevendavy (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]] | [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]] | ||
:: 90%, Ah, go on then, but I am only letting you off on account of the funky photos. [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]] | :: 90%, Ah, go on then, but I am only letting you off on account of the funky photos. [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Here goes your article. I hope you have the strength and power to defend your version. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 14:20, May 14, 2007
Thought by evolutionists to represent some sort of "caveman". In fact, fits well within the normal height-weight ratios of modern humans
How does the fact that they were physically similar to modern humans in some characteristics preclude them from having lived in caves? Chrysogonus 07:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
- You need to consider the connotation of caveman, not just its denotation.
- denotation: a human being who lives in a cave : cave-dweller
- connotation: a primitive (practical subhuman) creature having the appearance of homo sapiens and yet not really a person
- This is rough, of course, or I'd simply add it to the article. Do you get my drift? --Ed Poor 07:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
So why use the term "caveman" in the article? In what way does the height/weight ratio of the neanderthals have a bearing on whether they were modern humans or not? Can you link to some evolutionist researh in which neanderthals are described as subhuman? Chrysogonus 08:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
- No, I can't. I don't know enough about human origins to do that. You sound like you know more about this than I do. May I offer you some writing tasks to volunteer for? ;-) --Ed Poor 08:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Don't mess with this article!
I wrote 90% of this article and it now falls under my protection:
- I will only allow additions with credible references:
- Good: accredited news agencies, science journals, university websites and research papers
- Bad: blogs, 100 year old books, AiG, CMI,...
- I will not allow creationist material in this article: this one's for science, if you're a YEC, go to a debate page or go vandalize the Dinosaur article
- 95%? Give me a bit more credit thatn that, it took me a while to get this article properly started. Your work on the article is superb, but I claim th eright to assist with this project. Your work is excellent though, in transforming my text to a full article and I wonder if you would be interested in doing the same for Homo stevendavy
Is 90% ok? But, yeah, of course you can edit, anyone can edit this, as long as it's properly sourced.
- 90%, Ah, go on then, but I am only letting you off on account of the funky photos. stevendavy
Here goes your article. I hope you have the strength and power to defend your version. Leopeo 10:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)