Shift on Red Shift

[KerrMetric]

However I would like to point out that after a number of posts of slander, KerrMetric has not bothered to substantiate what he said about Barry's work or Barry himself. That is telling.

No what is telling is that unlike Barry I actually am a physicist and employed by a well known research university (Cal Tech.) so my not posting for a day or so was due to the fact I actually do scientific research not misapply basic statistics and fudge values for 300+ year old data so that my fallacious model appears to show something I want it to.

If anyone has anything substantive to say regarding the quality of Barry's work, please feel free to email either of us at barry@setterfield.org.

I suggest people Google around and there are several commentaries about Barry's so called research and the fudging that occurred and the incompetency exhibited.

Put it this way - he couldn't get hired as a lab tech. never mind a research physicist.

This is not a cruel character assassination, it is a fact.


Please ask HSetterfield for Barry's accepted peer reviewed journal papers in reputable scientific journals OR the well known renowned physicists who share his views.

 

[vossler]

Boy, just when you thought things were getting more civil here in OT. I suppose I knew that couldn't last.

I don't know why the need for such vitroilic speech. I understand if I'm an expert in my field and someone makes a claim that I know to be false that I just couldn't stand by and let it stand. But, as Christians, we shouldn't behave as the world does and throw out such hateful personal remarks. Then to do so without any independent support, well it just makes you wonder.

My recommendation is not to participate in discussions with people you know won't respect you or your views. There are quite a few posters here whom I avoid because I know the discussion will bear no fruit and only serve to upset me or others. What has ended up happening is that someone who has recently contributed to many discussions has now seen the need to shake the dust off of her feet and move on. Given the circumstances, I commend that decision as wise and proper.

It's one thing to have your position ridiculed by those in the world, it's quite another to have it done so by a brother.

 

[KerrMetric]

Boy, just when you thought things were getting more civil here in OT. I suppose I knew that couldn't last.

I don't know why the need for such vitroilic speech. I understand if I'm an expert in my field and someone makes a claim that I know to be false that I just couldn't stand by and let it stand. But, as Christians, we shouldn't behave as the world does and throw out such hateful personal remarks. Then to do so without any independent support, well it just makes you wonder.

My recommendation is not to participate in discussions with people you know won't respect you or your views. There are quite a few posters here whom I avoid because I know the discussion will bear no fruit and only serve to upset me or others. What has ended up happening is that someone who has recently contributed to many discussions has now seen the need to shake the dust off of her feet and move on. Given the circumstances, I commend that decision as wise and proper.

It's one thing to have your position ridiculed by those in the world, it's quite another to have it done so by a brother.

There is a difference between being wrong and being a fraud.

Someone who is wrong should be corrected - someone who is a fraud and actually fudges the data should be called out as such. I don't know how you were raised but it seems many on here may have been raised in a laissez faire environment where such behaviour is allowed to slide by - nay even encouraged if the message behind it is appreciated.


Let me spell it out for you what was done by Barry Setterfield.

He deliberately manufactured a value for his model for the oldest data point in his data. A value I might add that the source he used told you NOT to use. It turns out this extremal point is what drives the conclusions drawn from his so called model. He also omitted many other data points that spoilt his "model" building. This is nothing but cherry picking and fabrication of data to get your conclusion out of the data. It's fraud!!!!!!!!!

Do you understand what fraud is? Do you understand what is dishonourable?

Why do some people on here act like this is acceptable behaviour OR hide behind a facade of "well I don't know who is right, it's all opinion I guess" garbage?

 

[Mallon]

Why do some people on here act like this is acceptable behaviour OR hide behind a facade of "well I don't know who is right, it's all opinion I guess" garbage?

Because it lines up with some of our comfortable preconvictions?

 

[KerrMetric]

Because it lines up with some of our comfortable preconvictions?

Oh I know, I was pretty much being rhetorical. But it really is an excellent example of the (deliberately) blind leading the blind.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Why do some people on here act like this is acceptable behaviour OR hide behind a facade of "well I don't know who is right, it's all opinion I guess" garbage?


for my part, i've learned here to trust your learned opinion in physics and astronomy and i had no desire to research the issue for myself or try to understand the problems with his viewpoint. I simply mentally marked his name with a "grossly wrong" and moved on.

however the claim of fraud is a strong one. does he deserve it? i don't know. He is probably a well meaning, intense, busy person that thinks he is doing a good thing with his work, or he may be a bumbling old man that doesn't really understand the science but is well meaning and presents such a kindly face to the world that everyone accepts what he says for the sake of their own grandfather's. i don't know.

I do know that you are defending your turf, the science you've dedicated a good bit of your life to and you have strong feelings for it. That is a good thing and probably makes you a much better teacher and researcher than the average mediocre person that seems to dominate most of our world. Using strong language is understandable in your case, even though i would not use it myself, but i am not protecting anything of value being here and discussing things, you are. I find the language and sentiment understandable and under the circumstances forgivable. but I would expect the Setterfields to react to the language, and that is their right to. no one likes to be called names.

is their science garbage? probably. but i can't demonstrate it is.
are they frauds? probably not, fraud is really a legal term meaning that they are deliberately trying to deceive people on issues that they really know are false but they are portraying them as true to gain something. I suspect after everything is said and done, they really sincerely believe that their science is correct and good science. This sincerity is (in my mind) an adequate defense to the charge of fraud.

if i had to label people like this, i'd call them "pious fools" and what they are doing "pseudoscience". I don't think that they are in the same box with Hovind, he is certainly a "hoaxer" and a "fraud". I think he knows that what he is teaching is false and/or misleading. I'm not so sure about the Setterfields.

is strong even nasty language appropriate? not by me, not in this case. For KerrMetric, it is not inappropriate and i think understandable and excusable. are the charges right and proper? i don't know.

Why do some people on here act like this is acceptable behaviour OR hide behind a facade of "well I don't know who is right, it's all opinion I guess" garbage?

just because i can not demonstrate to my satisfaction who is right, does not mean i consider all opinions on the topic garbage. For i don't, KerrMetric's opinion carries significant weight with me and i have no problem labelling his opposition's opinions on the topic as garbage, however i reject applying that kind of language to the people holding those opinions.

 

[KerrMetric]

I equate what Barry Setterfield did with his initial c-decay study every bit as fraudulent as Kent Hovind.

When one deliberately takes an extremal data point - the point that basically determines the entire course of his claim - and substitutes a value that he already knew was false for that data point since the source for that data point (Greensteins 1973 paper on the Romer data) says what the value should have been - then you have fraud. Not well meaning incompetence or Setterfield sincerely believed he was right - he ALTERED data and chose the value carefully so as to get the answer he had beforehand wanted.

He also does this in another situation in the c-decay discussion though that case is somewhat more subtle.

No - it's clear and simply fraud.


ps

I have no idea whether HSetterfield is what they claim to be - i.e. the wife of Barry Setterfield.

But I stand by my claim that Barry Setterfield fudged his data in a deceitful manner. In fact - it is obvious he did and I am sure he has spent the years since trying to weasel out of this.

 

[Servant222]

Fraud. (from Merriam-Webster)
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK

2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be

"Intentional" would need to be proven.

To test whether a publicly-made statement is fair comment or not, one could write it down, sign and date the statement, and have someone witness it, and then send it to the person affected, and then be prepared to accept the consequences if the person decides to take action. Trouble is, this is not really what Christians are supposed to do.

Personally, I winced at some of the statements made, and thought that the points could have been made without resorting to such strong language. Maybe I'm a pushover, but the example I like to follow is described in Galatians

Galatians 5:22-24 (New International Version)

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control.

 

[KerrMetric]

It was intentional. No more really needs to be said. The data was deliberately fudged to get the required answer. There can be no doubt of this.

 

[shernren]

I equate what Barry Setterfield did with his initial c-decay study every bit as fraudulent as Kent Hovind.

When one deliberately takes an extremal data point - the point that basically determines the entire course of his claim - and substitutes a value that he already knew was false for that data point since the source for that data point (Greensteins 1973 paper on the Romer data) says what the value should have been - then you have fraud. Not well meaning incompetence or Setterfield sincerely believed he was right - he ALTERED data and chose the value carefully so as to get the answer he had beforehand wanted.

He also does this in another situation in the c-decay discussion though that case is somewhat more subtle.

No - it's clear and simply fraud.


ps

I have no idea whether HSetterfield is what they claim to be - i.e. the wife of Barry Setterfield.

But I stand by my claim that Barry Setterfield fudged his data in a deceitful manner. In fact - it is obvious he did and I am sure he has spent the years since trying to weasel out of this.

What about Alan Montgomery's continuation of the research? Is that subject to the same gross statistical errors as well?

 

[busterdog]

"Intentional" would need to be proven.

To test whether a publicly-made statement is fair comment or not, one could write it down, sign and date the statement, and have someone witness it, and then send it to the person affected, and then be prepared to accept the consequences if the person decides to take action. Trouble is, this is not really what Christians are supposed to do.

Personally, I winced at some of the statements made, and thought that the points could have been made without resorting to such strong language. Maybe I'm a pushover, but the example I like to follow is described in Galatians

Galatians 5:22-24 (New International Version)

Good post. I would also question whether it is possible to pursue knowledge in any ultimate sense without the things you speak of.

Time and again, different types knowledge are distinguished in scripture. Some knowledge is just not possible with out certain gifts or fruit.

I regard insult an indication that serious inquiry is not fully possible.

 

[KerrMetric]

I regard insult an indication that serious inquiry is not fully possible.

The true insult is to both our individual and collective intelligence is the deliberate fudging of the data to get the result wanted.

 

[KerrMetric]

What about Alan Montgomery's continuation of the research? Is that subject to the same gross statistical errors as well?

Read this and what is your impression of what was done.

http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkalan.html

 

[vossler]

Normally I don't look very far into scientific arguments. But this one actually caused me to take a look. I did a google on Mr. Setterfield and in all the links I found not a single one called him a fraud. Only one said he was dishonest but the vast majority had nothing negative to say about the man. Yet here he's called a fraud among other negative connotations. It would appear that the folks out there are much kinder than those here. How is it acceptable for us to be so vitriolic when the world isn't?

 

[KerrMetric]

That's because 99% of the links are from Creationist websites just regurgitating the c-decay argument. If you look closely - the 2 or 3 remaning non-Creationist links with this work referenced do accuse him of being fraudulent and stupid. I can Google the word sex and I bet a huge preponderence of the hits are porn related. Same sort of effect.

I am also not surprised vossler that you didn't look "very far into the scientific arguments". I wonder why?


By the way vossler - what would you call someone who fudged and cherry picked their data so as to get the result they wanted?

Honest? Above board? A servant of Christ?

 

[busterdog]

Normally I don't look very far into scientific arguments. But this one actually caused me to take a look. I did a google on Mr. Setterfield and in all the links I found not a single one called him a fraud. Only one said he was dishonest but the vast majority had nothing negative to say about the man. Yet here he's called a fraud among other negative connotations. It would appear that the folks out there are much kinder than those here. How is it acceptable for us to be so vitriolic when the world isn't?

One interesting thing is to look at the form of the argument. If you are tracking a trend in data, your instrucment may be sensitive to say an accuracy of within 1 meter. Can you solve to a value accurate to the centimeter? Yes, you can. You need enough seperate measurements and you have to apply the appropriate math to find the answer. You need an average or other more sophisticated analysis.

This is what accepted scientist do all the time.

And other scientists have validited Setterfield and Tift on that basis.

The fact that Setterfield or Tift did it is dismissed as an analysis of noise or randomness.

Other scientists have said quite plainly, that this work is unacceptable because it is not consistent with the cosmological model that is most generally accepted. Lets hear the doubters shout those guys down as well.

Have I proven Setterfield right? No. But, I have found lots of error in how he is attacked.

The arguments are completely tendentious. They are so tendentious that it is almost impossible to find out where Setterfield might be in error. How do you get at a real analysis? You sure can't do it the way this thread is being taken over by vituperation.

 

[KerrMetric]

One interesting thing is to look at the form of the argument. If you are tracking a trend in data, your instrucment may be sensitive to say an accuracy of within 1 meter. Can you solve to a value accurate to the centimeter? Yes, you can. You need enough seperate measurements and you have to apply the appropriate math to find the answer. You need an average or other more sophisticated analysis.

This is what accepted scientist do all the time.

You clearly have never done any experimental analysis with real world data. And "accepted scientists" don't fudge the data and cherry pick to get the answer they want.

And other scientists have validited Setterfield and Tift on that basis.

No they have not. In fact - both in their respective areas have been invalidated. And Tifft and Setterfield are not related in any sense, just to make that clear.

Other scientists have said quite plainly, that this work is unacceptable because it is not consistent with the cosmological model that is most generally accepted. Lets hear the doubters shout those guys down as well.

That is not the issue here and is just a "muddy the waters" attempt to appeal to people like you.

The fact that Setterfield or Tift did it is dismissed as an analysis of noise or randomness.

Why are you linking two unrelated ideas and the people behind them?

And Setterfields "work" has nothing to do with noise or randomness - it has everything to do with lying!!!!

The arguments are completely tendentious. They are so tendentious that it is almost impossible to find out where Setterfield might be in error.

COMPLETE and utter rubbish. He blatantly fudged the data of the extremal point that drives his entire analysis. This is no case of "impossible to find". A decent high school student could spot it a mile away.

How do you get at a real analysis? You sure can't do it the way this thread is being taken over by vituperation.

A real analysis shows Setterfield is just plain wrong - because if you toss out his fudged data value and replace it with the correct value (and you also don't toss out other values like he did) then you get the fact that the speed of light measurements are all consistent with no change over several hundred years. END OF STORY!!!

What you cannot do on this thread is have a bunch of non-scientists analyse the work of another non-scientist (Setterfield) and come up with meaningful physics. Mainly because they like the message and facts be damned.

 

[Servant222]

Inbetween the noise here on this thread is some really important stuff that does need to be earnestly debated so that the credibility of the Christian faith is upheld.

Again, my favourite example is the geocentric universe model, which claims that all the stars, including the sun, and planets revolve around the Earth, which was thought to be at the centre of the Universe.

Now what is interesting is that the geocentric model was the dominant theory through Jesus' time, having been proposed by Plato and Aristotle, in the 4th century BC, and then carried on by the Greeks, who eventually called it the Ptolemaic theory. Most likely, Paul and the apostles would have believed that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, and would presumably have interpreted the Bible to say so. This interpretation was then vigorously defended by the Christian church until the 17th century.

It was not until 1610 when Galileo finally provided enough evidence to convince most scholars of the day that the geocentric theory could not possibly be correct. Many religious leaders were sceptical and claimed Galileo was a heretic, and even today, there are still fundamentalist Christians who interpret the Bible to show that the Earth is the centre of the Universe. Most scientists, though, have a different idea.

I think the various debates here in the Origins section are similar to those that prevailed during Galileo's time- those people, like us, did not doubt the authenticity of the Bible, but vigorously debated how the scriptures were to be interpreted. It was only through much honest inquiry and reasoned debate that the present theories came to be accepted by the vast majority of people, includings Christians.

So we need to carry on with debates like this, but we also need to do so in a calm and responsible fashion that upholds our Faith and sets a good example for the rest of the world.

 

[Servant222]

I regard insult an indication that serious inquiry is not fully possible.

Insult is a useful and apparently justified tactic in some professions- for example, courtroom dramas often seem to require using insults; anything to make your case with conviction (so to speak! ).

But insult is usually not appropriate in scientific pursuits and is viewed suspiciously as an attempt to cover up the facts. Church ministers also seem to be held to a higher standard and need to be very careful about making remarks that are viewed by the secular community as being insulting, even if they are true!

But in case I inadvertently "insulted" you, don't fret- if there is one "profession" where insult is a real basic requirement for success, politicians are hard to beat.

So to go back to your point, does this confirm that we shouldn't ever be taking politicians and political debate too seriously?

 

[busterdog]

Insult is a useful and apparently justified tactic in some professions- for example, courtroom dramas often seem to require using insults; anything to make your case with conviction (so to speak! ).

But insult is usually not appropriate in scientific pursuits and is viewed suspiciously as an attempt to cover up the facts. Church ministers also seem to be held to a higher standard and need to be very careful about making remarks that are viewed by the secular community as being insulting, even if they are true!

But in case I inadvertently "insulted" you, don't fret- if there is one "profession" where insult is a real basic requirement for success, politicians are hard to beat.

So to go back to your point, does this confirm that we shouldn't ever be taking politicians and political debate too seriously?

No fret at all. I thought the post was kind of funny.

I have heard it all. Freakin' lawyers. You know the funny thing is, when they guys are really slinging the mud, they are spending huge sums of money that the more sensible guys never spend, because they simply face reality, assess the strengths and weaknesses of both sides and make a deal.

Insults are for amateurs and or hit men who can afford to fight endlessly, the truth be damned.