User talk:Celador

Welcome!

Hello, Celador, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

TheRingess 15:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution[edit]

This is in regards to your edits on evolution. Please read up on the Neutral Point of View policy that Wikipedia has. Your edits were strictly POV. If you have any further questions you are welcome to ask me at my talk page. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 16:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for your edit on Puma. You're making it very hard to continue assuming good faith. --Cyde Weys 16:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please sign your comments with four tildes (i.e. ~~~~), and please create new sections for your comments by surrounding the header topic with double equals signs (i.e. ==Evolution==). Now let me point out the various fallacies in your actual statement:

First of all, evolution is a fact and a theory. Secondly, you seem to misunderstand what a scientific theory actually is. It doesn't mean the opposite of fact or law, in case you were wondering. And your statement "something which can't be proven is a religion" is demonstrably false. The word religion means a lot more than "something which cannot be proven". And anyway, you seem not to understand that nothing is ever proven in science, only disproven. You may want to brush up on the scientific method. In summary: please don't edit articles when you don't understand the subject matter and please don't edit articles to conform to your specific religious POV. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 19:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. reference --John^DO|^{Speak your mind} I doubt it 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Dating[edit]

I see you have edited the article on carbon dating to insert your own POV. Even worse, you didn't even bother to use proper punctuation or capitalization. This is an encyclopedia for God's sake. Would you expect to find something like that in Encyclopedia Britannica? And as for your "objections" to carbon dating, please see the TalkOrigins Archive. Specifically, read the responses to various challenges on radiometric dating (I've linked you with an anchor deep into the page so it should be right there). --Cyde Weys 19:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]