Once known by all true scholars of human evolution to be an ancient ancestor of man. This true "ape man" had the jaw of a modern ape and the skull of a modern man. Today this ape-man is not so well known among true scholars of evolution.
RADIOCARBON DATING
A remarkably precise method of actually measuring the age of any carbon-containing sample. Except for certain spurious (young) dates, radiocarbon, like other methods involving the decay of radionuclides will, given several absolutely safe assumptions, invariably indicate a ripe old age for any specimen consistent with a slow process of evolution.
I'll take on a couple of these (have to leave some fun for the rest of the folks).
First, the author's characterization of Piltdown Man being "once known by all true scholars of human evolution to be an ancient ancestor of man" is incorrect. Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang (E.A. Hooton, Up from the Ape, revised edition; The MacMillan Co., 1946). This is what a 1946 textbook shows, several years before the claims for Piltdown were completely falsified. I could probably find an older textbook, but I think the point is made.
Second, on radiocarbon dating your author cites no evidence against it! All we have is tongue-in-cheek humor. Sorry, this is an area in which I have some familiarity, and I can assure you that radiocarbon dating is pretty accurate. It has been calibrated with bristlecone pines, which through tree-ring dating can be taken back some 10,000 years. When you date a 10,000 year old section of a tree and calibrate your curve, there are pretty good odds you will be very close to the correct date.
Two additional points: you can't date old fossils with radiocarbon dating as it only extends back some 50,000 years. Unless you believe that everything is young, say about 4004 B.C.???? (Also, fossils are ROCK! There's no carbon there anyway. Send the author you quoted back to the science books.)
Oh, you say! I'll take that 4004 B.C. date, so radiocarbon should work! Well, if dinosaurs were around about 4004 B.C. or so, give or take a few centuries, we should have lots of dino bones in the sites archaeologists test and radiocarbon date. Bones last quite a while in most soils, and teeth tend to last even longer. Guess what? None! Nada! Zip! Zero! Even a nearly-blind archaeologist would notice a dino tooth!
So there are two down. You folks can deal with the rest.
A fake created by a French priest.