Talk:Moab Man

Why delete so much of the article?
I know my editing of the page had som creationistic manner, but i did not wrote any lies. As far as i has read, it seems like people say that radiometric dating can't be used when it comes to dinosaur bones, but it can when it comes to human bones. And why should not the human bones be old, just because they are unfossilized: many found dinosaur bones is not completely fossilized either. I want to be humble in guestions like this, but why did you delete what i wrote?
 * Hi Conty,
 * The Creationist stuff was problematic. Lines like "it could imperil the major claim that man and dinosaurs is separated by millions of years" and "The datings has give an age of about 300 - 1400 years, despite radiocarbon dating also has give a dated age of about 9900 years in a fossil from a Allosaurus" need references from reliable sources. There were also quite a few grammar issues. Firsfron of Ronchester  21:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The first articles manner
Sorry for the "cretionistic manner", but i tried to make the article so both creationists and people beliving something else could accept it. For example, i wrote that radiocarbon dating of the bones gives an age of about 1400 years ( something postive for non-creationists ), and then i wrote that radiocarbon dating also has given an age of just about 9900 years in bones from Allosaurus ( which gives hope to creationists, because it may question the trustworthiness of carbon dating on the bones of "Malachite man" ). But is it so that my article gave to great advantage to the creationists, or is articles with "creationistic manner" not acceptable on Wikipedia? Conty, 12 june. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conty (talk • contribs) 13:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)