Is Bill Nye wise ????????

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:23 pm

If Answers in Genesis were not fundamentalist frauds this would not be necessary.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
But they are fundamentalist frauds and thus this is necessary.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:54 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:If Answers in Genesis were not fundamentalist frauds this would not be necessary.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
But they are fundamentalist frauds and thus this is necessary.


Another one of Scam's scams. He didn't win the debate with Bill Nye so he wants to get back at Nye with a book where Nye can't answer back to defend himself.

Still, its al good news for Scam's family - not exactly neutral observers. Son in law suitably and conveniently gets his pockets lined in the process.

Lesson to anyonethinking about debating with Scam. He's not very good at it but will arrange the last say and make money out of it.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Sep 26, 2014 9:00 pm

Message as sent to AiG:

https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/bo ... ham-debate
You really are disgusting liars.
Ham lost the debate, everyone agrees, and the answer to the question (which you have quoted incompletely) is 'no'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:12 pm

Email as sent to the extremist Cowboy Bob Sorensen:


https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham

"Not only was the debate format itself downright bad, but Nye was
using dishonest debate tactics as well as outdated, disproved "facts",
and I've been pointing this out for months. Intellectually honest
atheists should have been embarrassed by his performance, including the
elephant hurling trick where Ken had no time to respond to all of his
accusations. Nye looked silly by pulling that stunt."

Liar.

Nye's debate tactics were fine and that is why he won. The moderator
did not step in nor did he need to.

But the young earth creationists are crying foul and whinging -
because they have no science on their side as everyone else knows in
spades. As usual.

Sorensen - you are a Liar for Jesus. Unless you can point to a
specific fact presented by Nye that has been scientifically debunked?

As for Mr Ham - his tactic was to try and create as much confusion as
possible about what we can learn about our origins and history using
the scientific method.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:04 pm

It was unwise of Nye, who made himself the tool of a fool.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:05 pm

Wide circulation email just sent:


"This is how the YEC bigot Bob Sorensen reacts when presented with facts via email (see my message sent from my O2 email address at 21.10 pm BST on 1 October). He runs back to safety of a Facebook page from which he knows his challenger has previously been banned (for posting the wrong sort of information in the past I presume though Mr Ham and his accomplices never did attempt to explain why I was banned) and quote-mines my message:

Please see at the current fourth conversation at this link (where the debate with Bill Nye is being discussed by Ken Ham supporters):
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
"A Nye fanboy was incensed at my comment and posted a reply on an unimportant forum of the BCSE. His comments included, "Sorensen - you are a Liar for Jesus. Unless you can point to a
specific fact presented by Nye that has been scientifically debunked?"
I have, and he has complained about them before. Using 10 links to AiG's "Answering Bill Nye" and other things, I posted this:
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/06 ... -bill.html
He also said, "As for Mr Ham - his tactic was to try and create as much confusion as possible about what we can learn about our origins and history using the scientific method."
Not only poisoning the well, but an appeal to motive fallacy. When calling other people liars without being able to support such claims, that makes HIM the liar."

First, note that Sorensen refuses to speak to me direct but instead complains about me on a dishonest and heavily policed Facebook page (where I cannot post) and where he thinks he will gain a sympathetic hearing and perhaps bolster his YEC persecution complex with some like-brained individuals.

Second, as mentioned the YEC has Quote-Mined my comments. The words he quotes were actually preceded by, and backed up by:
"[Quote of what Sorensen wrote on Ham's Facebook page.]
Liar.
Nye's debate tactics were fine and that is why he won. The moderator
did not step in nor did he need to.
But the young earth creationists are crying foul and whinging -
because they have no science on their side as everyone else knows in
spades. As usual."

Third, Sorensen has posted a link (to one of his earlier blog posts) claiming to show - as I requested - that one or more facts presented by Bill Nye in February has been scientifically debunked.
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/06 ... -bill.html
Well, I have read this post and it does NOT contain any scientific debunkings of dendrochronology or of skeletal evidence for hominid evolution nor any proof that there was a real Noah's Ark (which Nye doubted). Rather the earlier Sorensen post contains strident opinions, attempts to sow doubts and scepticism among those people who do not like the findings of science, and then a load of links to non peer-reviewed and unscientific material (radio broadcasts and written articles) specially produced, in a clear attempt to discredit Bill Nye and his evidence long after the debate itself, by ... you guessed, 'Answers in Genesis'.

Fourth, I do not need as Sorensen dishonestly implies, to 'support' my claim about how Ken Ham behaved at the debate with Bill Nye and what his overall tactics were. Truthful people will agree, if they watch the debate (as I did in full) that I accurately described to Sorensen how Ham behaved. Ham's rubbishing of 'historical' science was a clear and blatant attempt to create endless confusion about what if anything we can learn about our origins and history using the scientific method. In order to get those listening to the debate from the YEC camp to dismiss literally everything put forward by Bill Nye that debunks the YEC 'model' of origins and thus persuade people (again or for the first time) that the only true source document for human history is the Bible and nothing else (and all the science is all 'wrong' unless it 'agrees' with Genesis) .

By contrast, in his earlier Facebook comments Sorensen lied about how Nye behaved (as the FULL version of my earlier email to Sorensen demonstrated to him).

Sorensen is not an accidental Liar for Jesus. He is an unrepentant Liar for Jesus.

A H-R
PS This message is going onto that unimportant BCSE community forum that Sorensen complains about."
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:43 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Wide circulation email just sent:


"This is how the YEC bigot Bob Sorensen reacts when presented with facts via email (see my message sent from my O2 email address at 21.10 pm BST on 1 October).


I dunno why you bothrr with Bob Sorensenm Ashley. To put it mildly, he's not exactly an intellectual.

Whilst Americans frequently have the admirable quality of being optimistic, all to often when it's coupled to "limited intellect", such optomism is nothing more than arrogance, madw worse by the inability to stand loss of face. Couple that to an environment of paranoia and conspiracy theory and you end up talking to a brick wall.

A better way to handle the likes of Sorensen is to dig out as much as you can about him (INternet produces a very long trail) and present it to the rest of the world. Undermining him that way will do him a lot of damage. Find out what hs qualifications are, whay he actually beleves, what he has said, what organosations he is associated with, his political views, he opinions about gay rights, feminism, gun control, the media, foreigners, people of other religions, race, etc...And publish it on Internet.

It's what I've tried to do with Big Ken Scam - showing the idiocy reveled through his break with AiG Australia and AiG UK, his nepotism within the main US AiG. his connections to the racist neo-Nazi League of the South, his lack of theological training, his "tricks of the trade".....
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 02, 2014 7:11 pm

I think both approaches have their merits.

I intervened because Sorensen was basically badmouthing Bill Nye and virtually claiming, falsely, that he cheated somehow in the debate with Ken Ham.

I see just now that Sorensen thinks Roger must be worth bothering with (as a source of pro-Sorensen/anti 'atheist' propaganda on his tightly controlled authoritarian anti-science facebook page):
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman

Once again, confirmation that Sorensen is a serial liar blinded by prejudice and religious zealotry (and afraid of genuine debates about science etc as the link Peter H posted today confirms).

I do not 'troll'. I pursue and I debunk false arguments by YECs like Sorensen. There is a difference. And what Roger was advocating is not 'trolling'. It is investigating people and published factual information about them. (Bob hates anybody doing just that regarding him.)

Sorensen is an unrepentant liar who knows he has been shown to be such but will never ever publicly admit it. He has decided that his behaviour is for the 'glory' of God.

People can either read only The Question Evolution Project facebook page and decide based on what they see there that Bob is their Christian hero crusading against evolution and all its works. Or they can read this page as well - and make up their own mind about Cowboy Bob.

Who appears to have decided against making further false statements to Mr Ham's rabble at this link after reading my post above of last evening:
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham


PS (at 21.45 pm)
Very pleased to see that Sorensen has linked his readers to this thread. His followers now have the opportunity to try and decide for themselves whether my diatribe was truthful and whether I was right to criticise that of Sorensen on Ken Ham's facebook page.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Bob Sorensen - 'Christian' Liar

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:16 pm

Email as just sent to Sorensen et al:


"About 15 minutes ago Sorensen LIED on his Facebook page AGAIN.
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman
Mr Nye did NOT use 'bad science' in his debate with Ken Ham.
As I pointed out last night, Sorensen's earlier post fails entirely to show that Nye did such a thing.
But Sorensen is ignoring my email message, which I know he has seen because he also linked to the BCSE community forum where it was reproduced by myself, and instead lying to his band of wilfully but unnecessarily ignorant facebook followers.
Black is not White, Lying Hypocrite Christian Sorensen.
Utterly shameful."


PS (at 1.43 am BST)
Had Nye presented any 'bad science' at the debate, I am sure that these Christians would have pointed it out:
http://biologos.org/blog/ham-on-nye-our-take
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:47 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:I think both approaches have their merits.

I intervened because Sorensen was basically badmouthing Bill Nye and virtually claiming, falsely, that he cheated somehow in the debate with Ken Ham.

I see just now that Sorensen thinks Roger must be worth bothering with (as a source of pro-Sorensen/anti 'atheist' propaganda on his tightly controlled authoritarian anti-science facebook page):
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman



It just about sums Sorensen up - he thinks all scientists are basically wrong, thinks he knows what inividuals' politics should be and that only his religion is right. Sorensen is obviously amazed at what he is.

As I say, his views are at the Homer Simpson level.

I think I'll go and have a pint of Duff beer in Moe's Bar.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Nov 30, 2014 8:23 pm

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-v ... s-changed/
Tosh. The YEC worldview is that if facts established by the scientific method contradict the Bible in some way then they are 'not' facts. Bill Nye believes that science can and has established certain facts about the past. Answers in Genesis are in denial about the facts established by science regarding the distant past. Ken Ham did not present any convincing 'contrary evidence' rather he ASSERTED that Bible accounts of the past give a perfect eye witness account of everything. Thus he lost the debate 'Is creation is a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?"
But AiG are still whinging. "Bill Nye repeated many popular “evidences” that supposedly prove an old earth, such as ice layers, tree rings, fossil layers, and distant starlight. He even said he’d be willing to change his beliefs about evolution and billions of years if Ham produced evidence to the contrary.
But the answers have already been available for years, and Ham had listed some of them earlier. Nye just ignored them."
Such anti-science hypocrisy. Such arrogance. Such a refusal to accept unequivocal scientific evidence. Ham did not provide scientific answers or rebuttals to any of the above.
"Unless someone is willing to look at history from God’s perspective—the Bible—he won’t change." How can an informed person honestly do that when the material evidence totally FAILS to confirm literal 'Bible history' especially that of Genesis? They can either live with cognitive dissonance and be open about that. Or they can LIE their heads off about 'science'. Ken Ham has made a career out of doing the latter.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:17 am

Some of this, and nearby, stuff looks as though it belongs in Converstations. However....
I followed Ashley's link where he says Sorenson mentions Roger but could find the mention. What i did see was the start of a contentious looking post about evolution hindering cancer research. On trying to read the rest of the article, I got a bad-link message with this warning:
Remember: Only follow links from sources you trust.
Well said, that administrator :-)
Edit to add:
That dig was getting at Sorenson, not at you Ashley.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Is Bill Nye wise ????????

Postby Peter Henderson » Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:31 pm

No doubt Ham and Richard Fangrad will respond to this one:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10 ... =2&theater
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4337
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Sorensen, Nye

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:48 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:Some of this, and nearby, stuff looks as though it belongs in Converstations. However....
I followed Ashley's link where he says Sorenson mentions Roger but could find the mention. What i did see was the start of a contentious looking post about evolution hindering cancer research. On trying to read the rest of the article, I got a bad-link message with this warning:
Remember: Only follow links from sources you trust.
Well said, that administrator :-)
Edit to add:
That dig was getting at Sorenson, not at you Ashley.


I assume Brian is referring to my post at 19.11 pm on 2 October. At that point in time the link took the reader the Sorensen criticising Roger; not sure whether the comment in question on his facebook page is still visible. He said something to the effect that Roger was advocating 'trolling'.

Yes that Nye video does appear to be new (he refers at the end to an AiG 'indoctrination programme'). (Nye's p.a. recently sent me a not especially friendly email asking me not to send further messages, eg about post-debate pronouncements by Ham and co, to his email address.) (Nye's take on Hawking's AI warning might be interesting.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Nye-Ham debate

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 02, 2015 8:44 pm

I can understand why this decision was taken - but it is also most unfortunate since it will be endlessly exploited by You Know Who:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/ca-teac ... classroom/

PS I have just submitted the following comment (awaiting approval) under this blog:
http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.co.u ... reationist)
"This is all very understandable but it will be exploited by You Know Who:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/ca-teac ... classroom/
It does not sound like the teacher referred his students to Biologos!
"According to the Friendly Atheist, science teacher Brandon Pettenger of Arroyo Grande High School has been showing the video to his students, and then having them summarize the debate by posting on creationist websites."
More here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... -argument/
And here:
https://richarddawkins.net/2015/04/ffrf ... if-school/"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron