Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

FW: "Matthew Cserhati: he's no "David" either!"

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    Anyone know anything about this? What do you think I should do? Sincerely, Robert Baty To: maury_and_baty-owner@yahoogroups.com From: Matthew Cserhati Date:
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 31, 2014
      Anyone know anything about this?

      What do you think I should do?

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty



      To: maury_and_baty-owner@yahoogroups.com
      From: Matthew Cserhati
      Date: Friday, October 31, 2014 17:59:47 +0000

      Subject: "Matthew Cserhati: he's no "David" either!"

      Hello all,

      Could you please delete the thread "Matthew Cserhati: he's no "David" either!" which started on June 1, 2007?

      It appears on the Internet when I google my name.

      I lost my job due to this.


      Dr. Matthew Cserhati

      Department of Genetics, Cell Biology and Anatomy

      985805 Nebraska Medical Center
      Omaha, NE 68198-5805


      ----------------------------------------------------------------
      ----------------------------------------------------------------
    • w_w_c_l
      I seriously doubt Cserhati lost any job because of something he wrote as a M.S. seven years ago. If he lost a job it s probably because of the young-earth
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 31, 2014

        I seriously doubt Cserhati lost any job because of something he wrote as a M.S. seven years ago.  If he lost a job it's probably because of the young-earth foolishness he has continued to post since attaining his PhD, such as this review of the Ham/Nye debate:
        http://bibletruth.orgfree.com/articles/NyeHam.pdf

        He is a young-earth creationist and an evolution denier.  He promotes a distinction between so-called "historical science" and "observational science."  I can see why he wouldn't want this information available on the web if he was looking for a job somewhere where he would be able to use his place of employment as lending credibility to his UN-scientific views.

         

        Rick Hartzog

        Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

         

      • greeneto
        I think the answer as to what is appropriate is really simple: If Matthew has repudiated the false aguments he employed here:
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 1, 2014
          I think the answer as to what is "appropriate" is really simple:

          If Matthew has repudiated the false aguments he employed here:
           
          https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/creationism/conversations/topics/57523

          Then it might be appropriate.

          On the other hand, if he is still promoting such nonsense and simply does not like any potential repercussions of it, I don't see why anyone should accommodate young earth creationists who are merely trying to engage in cover up. I mean, seriously, that's just tough. He wants to promote his religious pseudoscience on the sly, and then try to hide it from professional science people for whom the promotion of such pseudoscience nonsense actually happens to be relevant to their employment in scientific work. Well, that's just too bad. Just because the young earth creationist wants to be shady, doesn't mean that anyone else has any responsibility to help him be shady.

          That's my take.

          - Todd (Steve) Greene
        • Robert Baty
          Steve, Thanks for your feedback on that. Matthew and I had quite an exchange and it appears that he wasn t really serious about having us delete inappropriate
          Message 4 of 9 , Nov 1, 2014
            Steve,

            Thanks for your feedback on that.

            Matthew and I had quite an exchange and it appears that he wasn't really serious about having us delete inappropriate materials or substantiate his claims.

            I think you got the analysis right and that there is no good reason for tampering with the evidence in this venue.

            Matthew, in his last message, wrote in part:

            - "Robert Baty, I am very disappointed at you, and your list.

            - Repent while you still have time.

            - That is all, for me.

            - The discussion is over.

            - I will not react to any more of your emails as I don’t have time."


            And so, for now at least, that matters seems to have come to a conclusion.


            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty


            To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
            From: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 10:24:52 -0700
            Subject: [M & B] Re: FW: "Matthew Cserhati: he's no "David" either!"

             
            I think the answer as to what is "appropriate" is really simple:

            If Matthew has repudiated the false aguments he employed here:
             
            https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/creationism/conversations/topics/57523

            Then it might be appropriate.

            On the other hand, if he is still promoting such nonsense and simply does not like any potential repercussions of it, I don't see why anyone should accommodate young earth creationists who are merely trying to engage in cover up. I mean, seriously, that's just tough. He wants to promote his religious pseudoscience on the sly, and then try to hide it from professional science people for whom the promotion of such pseudoscience nonsense actually happens to be relevant to their employment in scientific work. Well, that's just too bad. Just because the young earth creationist wants to be shady, doesn't mean that anyone else has any responsibility to help him be shady.

            That's my take.

            - Todd (Steve) Greene

          • Ray Ausban
            I have to agree with Todd on this one. I know that some of my political views would be offensive to a number of my customers. Therefore, I do not put my
            Message 5 of 9 , Nov 1, 2014
              I have to agree with Todd on this one.
              I know that some of my political views would be "offensive" to a number of my customers.
               
              Therefore, I do not put my views out there in such a way as to attract attention to myself. Part of the reason, I'm not on Facebook.
               
              Yet, I have paid a financial price because of some of my Church's political views. Before Prop 8, I was often hired because I could be counted on to be honest and reliable because of my religion, but after Prop 8, many customers turned to other people, because of my religion.
               
              So, if you are going to take a very public position on an issue, then expect to deal with the fall out. In his occupation, Matthew should have known, if he takes a stand against the main stream, then he will pay a price. (Actually, I've made that ascertion many times about science). Often, the price is finding a new occupation.
               
              Now, do I think it's "fair" for science to do this? The answer is no. The man should be entitled to his own opinion. But if his employers feel those opinions can scour his work or damage their image, then they have every right to fire him or not hire him.
               
              I don't think you should cover for him, unless he's changed direction or wants to go private by pulling all public work he's done on the subject. Rick's link shows he hasn't gone private.
               
              Ray


              From: "greeneto@... [Maury_and_Baty]" <Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com>
              To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2014 10:24 AM
              Subject: [M & B] Re: FW: "Matthew Cserhati: he's no "David" either!"

               
              I think the answer as to what is "appropriate" is really simple:

              If Matthew has repudiated the false aguments he employed here:
               
              https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/creationism/conversations/topics/57523

              Then it might be appropriate.

              On the other hand, if he is still promoting such nonsense and simply does not like any potential repercussions of it, I don't see why anyone should accommodate young earth creationists who are merely trying to engage in cover up. I mean, seriously, that's just tough. He wants to promote his religious pseudoscience on the sly, and then try to hide it from professional science people for whom the promotion of such pseudoscience nonsense actually happens to be relevant to their employment in scientific work. Well, that's just too bad. Just because the young earth creationist wants to be shady, doesn't mean that anyone else has any responsibility to help him be shady.

              That's my take.

              - Todd (Steve) Greene


            • piasanaol
              From: greeneto@yahoo.com [Maury_and_Baty] To: Maury_and_Baty Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 12:24 pm
              Message 6 of 9 , Nov 1, 2014
                 

                From: greeneto@... [Maury_and_Baty] <Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com>
                To: Maury_and_Baty <Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 12:24 pm
                Subject: [M & B] Re: FW: "Matthew Cserhati: he's no "David" either!"

                Pi:
                Todd ! ! !    Long time no see..... welcome back.
                 
                 
              • w_w_c_l
                Exactly, Todd, and well said. Dude tried to argue that something about plant genetics was evidence that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. I mean,
                Message 7 of 9 , Nov 1, 2014

                  Exactly, Todd, and well said.  Dude tried to argue that something about plant genetics was evidence that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.  I mean, come on.


                   

                • piasanaol
                  Rick: Exactly, Todd, and well said. Dude tried to argue that something about plant genetics was evidence that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. I
                  Message 8 of 9 , Nov 1, 2014
                    Rick:
                    Exactly, Todd, and well said.  Dude tried to argue that something about plant genetics was evidence that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.  I mean, come on.
                     
                     
                    Pi:
                    If true, then his "paper" most certainly did have something to do with creationism as it is uniquely creationists who argue for a planet that is only a few thousand years old.
                  • w_w_c_l
                    Pi, I have no idea what Cserhati s rejected paper was about. My comments about barley transposons are in reference to his 2007 claims on the creationism list:
                    Message 9 of 9 , Nov 2, 2014

                      Pi, I have no idea what Cserhati's rejected paper was about.  My comments about barley transposons are in reference to his 2007 claims on the creationism list:

                      Yahoo! Groups

                       

                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.