Yup, only fakes lift arguments. Only fakes try to prove their point by building strawmen out of the silliest things said by opponents. Only fakes try to discredit all opponents by using the most stupid arguments from some opponents. Lastly, only fakes do not source such a blatant misrepresentation of the oppositions arguments. You may have won one point through trickery, however that was only the fourth point against Rhodesian Man being a homo sapiens. You already had 3 strikes and you and your phony skull were out.
Since you seem to be making a habit lately of not answering to the posts you respond to but to other posts so that people cannot follow the thread, here are the other 3 strikes from post#1953:
1. It is from an unsigned article in TalkOrigins, not exactly what one calls a source of scientific excellence.
2. Even this author says that the dating can be anywhere from 200,000 years ago to 125,000 years ago. The earliest date for homo sapiens is 100,000 years ago.
3. This is by the admission of the author a "re-classified" fossil, it was homo rhodensis, not homo erectus before the evolutionists needed an erectus to show continuity to homo sapiens after Neanderthal was blown out of the water.
The Fossil Hominids: References. TalkOrigins does no original research, of course. They compile from the publications of the original researchers.
2. Even this author says that the dating can be anywhere from 200,000 years ago to 125,000 years ago. The earliest date for homo sapiens is 100,000 years ago.
You asked for "after 200,000 years ago." Rhodesia Man's dating range centers nicely in the interval you requested. All of the older, non-C14-dated skulls have similarly large ranges. Thus, you apparently don't ever have to accept any older fossil skull, if any uncertainty in age will do as grounds for rejection.
3. This is by the admission of the author a "re-classified" fossil, it was homo rhodensis, not homo erectus before the evolutionists needed an erectus to show continuity to homo sapiens after Neanderthal was blown out of the water.
Yeah, they changed the name. Boy, that proves a lot! Actually, it's Homo sapiens (archaic), most would say. Recall that any erectus after 400,000 years is controversial.