User talk:Csmatyi2

April 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Institute for Creation Research, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Strange that they write an article about ICR and never even invite ICR to review it. And then they charge them with pseudoscience. Thats libel. Thats not being constructive. Shame on you. Csmatyi2 (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are typically written without the involvement or knowledge of the subject, because they summarize what independent reliable sources state, not what an article subject says about itself. Article subjects are free to give descriptions of themselves on their own website. If the sources in articles are not being summarized accurately, or there are sources missing, please offer them, keeping in mind due weight. Wikipedia does not give equal time to all points of view, it depends on the sources. I'm not sure why you put shame on me personally, this is a community project where people of all viewpoints work together. I and others are willing to work with you to achieve a consensus. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If this organization feels libeled, it should follow the instructions at WP:LIBEL. Actual libelous content without any basis will be removed. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot is correct. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources WP:RS. Reliable sources support the statement that ICR promotes pseudoscientific ideas and is not libellous nor is it non-constructive. These are both assertions made by you which will have to be supported by evidence. If you want to challenge ICR being labelled pseudoscientifc you are welcome to do so within the terms of Wikipedia protococols - start at WP:5P. In addition adding 'Shame on you' is contrary to Wikipedia etiquette WP:CIVIL. All editors are volunteers and edits and content should be seen in good faith WP:FAITH Robynthehode (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Your recent edits to User talk:Csmatyi2 could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have a PhD in biology and a BSC in computer science and 15 peer reviewed articles to my name. I understand what science is and is not. Csmatyi2 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

 * This is rather authoritarian. It sounds just like the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages. Science does not respect human authorities. I follow the truth wherever it leads me. Evolution is not science. You're so biased. That is gravely concerning. Csmatyi2 (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You do not make the call. I do not make the call. Wikipedia does not make the call. The scientific community makes the call.
 * "If students of the nature of science are in agreement on anything, it is that science is a communal activity. The individual scientist may indeed formulate a particular theory explaining some phenomenon. But that explanation does not really enter the domain of science until it has been scrutinized, criticized, and tested by his or her colleagues in the relevant discipline. And, when the colleagues in a particular scientific discipline are in well-nigh complete agreement on the validity of some given explanation, it comes close to a form of scientific lunacy to proclaim the learned majority opinion wrong and to advocate some explanation that they emphatically reject." Albert, Leon H. (1986). „"Scientific" Creationism as a Pseudoscience". Creation/Evolution Journal. National Center for Science Education. 6 (2). ISSN 0738-6001.
 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The facts make the call my friend. If a theory such as evolution is monolithic, you know it is pseudoscience. Because if its priests and dignitaries can go around making statements unchecked by rival theories, you know that evolution cannot be scientific. Again, you can't observe molecules to men. You can't repeat it, nor test it. Evolution is not science. I urge you to study the nature of science. Csmatyi2 (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The theory of evolution competed against lamarckism, never against creationism. Creationism simply was not part of the competition. Evolution did not scientifically compete against creationism, same as Usain Bolt did not participate in Special Olympics.
 * It's patently manifest that flood geology is pseudoscience and lost the game before Darwin set foot on the Beagle. That can hardly change. It was already apparent before Darwin that the Earth was at least millions years old. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , evolution is not a monolithic theory. It is the conclusion based on multiple convergent lines of evidence including fossil records, comparative anatomy, developmental biology and DNA analysis, and it has been empirically proven in the laboratory, for example through bacteria evolving the ability to metabolise acidic media.
 * I have studied the history of science from its evolution out of natural philosophy. Robert Hooke argued in Micrographia that ammonites were the petrified remains of creatures that no longer live on Earth, and in a lecture in about 1690 he posited that the earth must be extremely old, much older than biblical scholars said, because of this and other evidence he had investigated. Hooke is mainly known for his law of springs, but he also coined the term "cell" for the biological concept, and was the father of the science of microscopy.
 * Science separates empirical fact from ideological Truth. Prior to the scientific revolution it was held that heavy objects fall faster than light ones, because Aristotle's rhetoric was more powerful than those who advocated the opposite. Aristotelian Truth was replaced by scientific fact - and the scientific revolution was the replacement of rhetoric (Truth) with empirically testable evidence (fact, a term borrowed from law). The same happened with the evolution of life on earth. It had been thought for over a century that life evolved, but Darwin described a mechanism and also showed examples of how this could be seen in real time through selective breeding. Darwin's work was not new or monolithic, it was incremental. Like Einstein, he took concepts that a lot of people had suspected and were testing, and stated them in a clear and unforgettable way: random mutation fixed by non-random selection over extremely long periods of time. The first two were well known to exist and were used daily by farmers and breeders, accepting the last only required ignoring man-made religious doctrine on the age of the earth.
 * Nothing in biology makes the slightest sense unless viewed with an understanding of evolution. Nothing in cosmology, geology or physics makes the slightest sense if you're determined to believe the universe is thousands, rather than billions, of years old.
 * That's science for you. Your Truth is not in line with empirical fact. Wikipedia is a fact-based project. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Robert Hooke wrote about this before 1690. Yes, it has been known for a very long time. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Robert Hooke wrote about this before 1690. Yes, it has been known for a very long time. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)