Would you like to tell me exactly what science was used in terms of attaching an age to these skulls? Perhaps later you would like to discuss Piltman?
Also, just try and absorb the following from one of my favorite web sites:
No scientist would ever succeed in getting funding from major federal or private sources to investigate if evolution has really occurred or not. The evolutionist Richard Leaky approached the National Geographic Society to get funding to look for the ape ancestors of man, not to investigate if man evolved from apes. It is interesting to note that when the Society gave Leaky his funds, he was warned: “If you find nothing you are never to come begging at our door again.” With this motivation, Leaky soon found 40 specimens of the “human ancestor,” Australopithecus, whose very name, by the way, means “Southern APE”! Most evolutionists are dead certain that this very ape-like ape evolved into man because of certain arguable similarities to man in its teeth and pelvic bones. Perhaps you heard the story of the evolutionist who dug up a fossilized fragment of an ape’s jaw and promptly declared it to be an ancestor of man—he was so excited about the find he said, “I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.”
One of the problems with the similarity = evolutionary ancestry axiom is that evolutionists ignore it whenever it doesn’t fit their evolutionary scenarios. There are many instances of remarkable similarities between animals that evolutionists consider to be only distantly related. The eye of the squid, for example, is strikingly similar to the human eye. Sometimes almost the whole body and even the behavior of animals are obviously similar and still evolutionists argue they are not closely related! For example, many of the Australian marsupials have strikingly similar counterparts to certain North American placental mammals. There are both marsupial and placental mammal versions of mice, moles, rabbits, wolves, and badgers. There is even evidence that there once were both marsupial and placental saber-toothed tigers! Yet evolutionists consider marsupials and placental mammals to be only distantly related because their mechanism of reproduction is so different. Evolutionists believe that the primitive ancestors of marsupial and placental mammals split off from a hypothetical common ancestor about 120 million years ago, long before there were mice, moles, rabbits, wolves, and badgers, and have been evolving separately ever since. How then did both these separate lines manage to come up with such similar animals?
Incredibly, evolutionists explain away amazing similarities between animals they consider to be only distantly related by simply invoking “convergent evolution.” Convergent evolution is the unobserved and unexplained process whereby two very different animals independently evolve into two very similar animals by an incredible run of countless lucky mutational coincidences extending over tens of millions of years! It seems that some folks will believe almost anything, as long as it doesn’t appear in the Bible.
Coyoteman can answer for himself, but he may have retired for the night. In the mean time, you should know that it's "Piltdown", not "Piltman".
Piltdown was a fake, just like the preacher Jim Jones. If you want to trade fake for fake, I think we can make a good night of it.
Let's see, Amee Simple McPherson... Marjoe...
Also, just try and absorb the following from one of my favorite web sites:
Please post the link to the "favorite web site" you quoted from.
Dating is done in several different ways. One is radiometric dating (of which there are several different kinds). Another deals with fauna and flora in associated strata. Still another deals with distinctive volcanic deposits. Using multiple methods helps to get reliable dates. But the dates are always cross-checked. If a fossil does not seem to fit, some bright person in some other facility will probably try to correct the date, and get a major research paper out of it.
As far as Piltdown Man, the great hoax, I would be happy to discuss it. What would you like to know?
In response also to your post #1674, there are not a lot of fakes and it is dishonest to claim otherwise. The vast majority of scientists hate errors and do their best to root them out.