I asked you for a source, and i pointed out the smoke and mirrors game you were playing. Your first source, more than 14 years old, was not from an authoritative source. Your second source, although authoritatie, did not support your claim, and it was also very much out of date. The h. neanderthalensis genome was sequenced last year. Any source you provide which does not take that into account is not authoritative, or no longer authoritative, on that basis.
Far from being "common knowledge," your claim was not just false, but intended to mislead. You were attempting to suggest that h. neanderthalensis and h. sapiens were not closely related, but the sequencing of the h. neanderthalensis genome shows not only are they closely related, but that modern h. sapiens whose ancestors left Africa more than 30,000 years ago have from one to four per cent genetic material (at least) from h. neanderthalensis.
If anything is "toxic" to someone's "ideology," it is that, and it is toxic to your ideology. Oh, and by the way, you're hardly in a position to complain about name calling.
You consistently distort and peddle half-truths, in addition to peddling outright lies. It is you who find reality toxic to your ideology. When called upon to put up or shut up, you dredge up out of date material either from dubious sources or which does not in fact state what you claim it does.
But of course, this latest tantrum of yours came when i asked you to provide your evidence for the so-called biblical flood. Far better to fling accusations and call others names than to actually step up to mark and support your wild claims, eh?