YEC Bob Sorensen - compulsive liar exposed

Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Moderator: Moderators

YEC 'science'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:00 pm
Today flagging this - as flagged by Sorensen:
"The biblical 'kind' is useless as the definition is warped as creationists need it to be."

Indeed, so. Or am I being unKIND.
Posts: 8113
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Actual 'conversation' with creationists

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:47 am

Via wider circulation email.

"Once again Ashley Haworth-Roberts is showing his inability to be civil. He is angry because he cannot create his own reality. He cannot accept the consequences of his actions. He is a liar which I have demonstrated several times including the fact that he refuses to keep his word regarding removing me from his spam mailings."

My reply:
"If you had not already guessed, Gordons is nothing but a nasty Sorensen apologist and a career troll who has been falsely accusing me of being a 'liar' for years.
search.php?keywords=trollitis&fid%5B0%5D=18 (please see this)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=51671&hilit=cyber#p51671 (replying to this trolling)

This is further evidence that the Sorensen camp are behind the indefensible and unjust decision by Facebook to ban me for 30 days. I tell the truth about The Question Evolution Project on other pages - and Sorensen, Long and Gordons become incandescent. They prefer the alternative reality of young earth creationist pages where ONLY posts agreeing with the page in question are tolerated. All the copy recipients who know me (most of them know me personally) know that while I have faults lying IS NOT ONE OF THEM. And there have been plenty of messages from me that were NOT copied to Gordons - but these were because he is one of the suspects in causing the indefensible ban I have received from Facebook. I defy Gordons to IDENTIFY 'lies' by me in the following:
"This being that earlier lying by Sorensen, echoing ICR lying. ... m=facebook See Wikipedia: "The research team therefore believes that H. naledi is not a direct ancestor of modern humans, although it is probably an offshoot within the genus Homo". The YECs falsely argued that Homo naledi is an 'evolutionary failure' simply because it might not have been a direct human ancestor. This lie being echoed in Sorensen's 1 October article when he claims because that new members (such as Homo naledi) are sometimes quietly removed from the 'ancestral parade' later on therefore evolution is simply 'mythology'. But I must CORRECT my first comment. I misremembered - although it was around more recently than originally thought Homo naledi was around in South Africa between 335,000 and 236,000 years ago."

The significance of the comment was explained at this post at 2.50 am on 5 October - which Gordons is AWARE OF but is DELIBERATELY IGNORING:

Curtis Long (administrator at 'The Question Evolution Project' and the person I suspect of complaining to Facebook about my recently removed posts at 'The Question Evolution Project Debunked'):
"The only things this proves is that the cowboy is right, and Hitler-Robbers is deranged. He just proved he's a liar again. I don't want your crap either, minion. I can't believe you're so stupid you antagonize very dangerous people like Gordons."

My reply:
"Curtis Long is a fascist and a bully. As some of you already know, last autumn I reported some messages from him to the local police here in England (even though he is in America).
Copy recipients will form their own opinion of his message. Which contains no substance and plenty of hatred. Funny how young earth creationism and right wing hatred and intolerance so often go together.
Should Long repeat his 'Hitler-Robbers' jibe on Facebook (which I will report if he does) I trust that Facebook will REMOVE his post and slap a BAN upon him? Fair's fair after all. Assuming Facebook care about fairness.
And Long has just told the world that Gordons is 'dangerous'. Who am I to argue?"
Posts: 8113
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YEC Bob Sorensen and co

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:03 pm

"If you ever develop the courage to debate, Bob, just let me know.
You're not blocked and I'll be here.
Any fans of the question evolution project pages are welcome to try to defend the tripe found therein as well. If you realize you can't, I understand."


(2) ... m=facebook
"One of the popular speculations about the origin of Earth's moon is that a celestial body was unable to stay in its traffic lane, lost control, and smacked into Earth way back when. This would explain the absence of lunar water to the satisfaction of naturalists who deny the truth of recent creation.
Even a cursory consideration of this idea shows that it is ridiculous. After all, the moon is the perfect size to obscure the sun during a total eclipse, and the moon is necessary for keeping life on Earth working efficiently. It has that almost-circular orbit and all. Rocks that Apollo astronauts brought back were tested in 2008 and found to have water, but that didn't seem to make an impression. Now that the moon can be studied from a distance, scientists learn that there is indeed water in the rocks. But it shouldn't be there according to proponents of the impact hypothesis."

"Got a source for this ever being an actual claim?" Sorensen cites a creationist article by Brian Thomas of the ICR which provides various links. Including this one:
"The idea that the interior of the Moon is water-rich raises interesting questions about the Moon’s formation. Scientists think the Moon formed from debris left behind after an object about the size of Mars slammed into the Earth very early in solar system history. One of the reasons scientists had assumed the Moon’s interior should be dry is that it seems unlikely that any of the hydrogen needed to form water could have survived the heat of that impact.
“The growing evidence for water inside the Moon suggest that water did somehow survive, or that it was brought in shortly after the impact by asteroids or comets before the Moon had completely solidified,” Li said. “The exact origin of water in the lunar interior is still a big question.”" ... o-the-moon
The lunar collision hypothesis was discussed on this TV programme which I watched last night (from around 18 minutes in). Because lunar and Earth rocks appear so similar they are postulating an extremely violent collision involving a third object which was vaporised. They did not directly address the water/possible watery interior issue.
Meanwhile from around 8 minutes in, ground up rock samples gathered by Apollo missions are examined - investigations suggest that rocks elsewhere on the moon may contain water only in the hundreds to tens of parts per million (more than previously thought but the rocks are not exactly as wet as many Earth rocks, though this does point to a potentially watery lunar interior).

So in summary, the ICR does seem to raise valid issues about how the violent early solar system collision led to the moon holding as much water (and hydrogen) as it apparently does. Though the fact that the moon is large/near enough to block the whole sun during most solar eclipses is of no benefit to life on Earth - just a source of wonder for humanity.
Posts: 8113
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - compulsive liar

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:03 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:
Why are there apparently NO dinosaur fossils anywhere in the Grand Canyon, Bob? Real science can explain why not. Science that is not forced into error by incorporating a fictional recent literally global flood. And instead starts with material EVIDENCE.

That article by Hebert contains nothing but pseudo-science and made-up claims. Because the ICR are not open-minded scientists. They are religious fanatics with an AGENDA. To persuade people that the book of Genesis is 'infallible' scientifically and historically. It is NOT. I used to be a Christian but I NEVER believed that it was (it didn't matter then now it strengthens my belief that there is probably no god because you WOULD expect infallible writings if they were the thoughts of a god).

"it cannot be explained by their belief system ...". Oh yes it CAN. Try eg googling Grand Canyon no dinosaur fossils. YECs have no plausible answer to the conundrum (short of admitting these creatures really DID go extinct around 65 million years earlier than their 'recent global flood').

Sorensen is STILL lying and STILL attacking me for exposing him as a liar and STILL displaying his utter ignorance: ... ssils.html
"An example of this is when someone foolishly uses a fallacious argument from silence to imply that, since no dinosaur fossils have been discovered at the Grand Canyon, the Genesis Flood is false [] Someone like that needs to do some research instead of showing his ignorance of both creation and secular models [] ... nd-canyon/

My argument is NOT foolish. By young earth creationist reasoning (which is not in the Bible) if the Genesis flood (its receding waters and uplift/rebound) formed the Grand Canyon (which is absolutely vast Bob) and dinosaurs perished during it less than 5,000 years ago, then some dinosaur fossils should have been found there - as David Coppedge at CREV admits is NOT the case thus destroying YEC arguments about the Genesis flood (a worldwide flood is also impossible). I have DONE research which is why I made my comment. And the real issue is the age of the EXPOSED LAYERS at the Grand Canyon, NOT when the canyon was formed by the Colorado River. They are TOO OLD for dinosaurs to have been around and to have sometimes have been buried and fossilised within them. Google if you don't believe me. The person showing ignorance, cant, hypocrisy and hatred (and cowardice) is YOU, Bob. David Coppedge's article provides NO rational answers and he is either confused or is DELIBERATELY MISLEADING his readers by not referring to the age of the exposed layers. "So the answer to PhysOrg‘s question, “Did dinosaurs enjoy Grand Canyon views?” is “Definitely not”".

Also this from Coppedge. "Their reason would be that the canyon formed after the great Flood of Noah’s day. The dinosaurs had all drowned during the Flood year, the last holdouts leaving footprints in Navajo sandstone at levels thousands of feet higher than the canyon sediments. The canyon sediments preserve only marine creatures buried in the early stages of the Flood. Possibly centuries after the Flood, a dam breach from a remnant inland sea carved the canyon when the sediments were still soft, according to a leading creation model." Total nonsense. And AT VARIANCE with other 'flood geologists' who say (or used to) that the receding floodwaters formed the canyon - not some other fictional event centuries later. More YEC lies to try and address a PROBLEM - the problem of no dinosaur fossils at the Grand Canyon. Which REAL science has EXPLAINED.

Unlike these YECs: ... nd-canyon/
"Some of these—including geologists who accept the biblical history of the global Flood—maintain the Grand Canyon was carved by a sudden release of water dammed up behind the Kaibab uplift (aka Kaibab Upwarp). Creationist geologists believe this water was trapped in the aftermath of the global Flood."
"A better explanation is that the GC was formed while the waters of Noah’s Flood receded from the American continent."

What I refer to in preceding paras is called science, Bob. But you won't touch it with a bargepole.
Posts: 8113
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Liar YEC Bob Sorensen

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:09 am

These nonsensical claims by AiG should mean that dinosaur fossils (they having often been clumsy lumbering and unintelligent beasts who might fail to escape catastrophically rising floodwaters sooner than many mammals and humans) are found within Grand Canyon layers - if such sedimentary layers were laid down during the 'recessive' stage of the said flood. But they aren't. Which is why we have the nonsense by Coppedge in the previous post - which disagrees with the other wild claims of AiG: ... k-problem/
"Archaeopteryx and Sinosauropteryx are found in rock layers associated with the Flood. So how old are they? They are about 4,350 years old. Dinosaurs are also found in rock layers from the Flood, putting them around 4,350 years old too. Did one turn into the other during the Flood? Not at all. They were fleeing from and finally buried and fossilized in the Flood." ... bal-flood/ (in this 1 minute audio Ham claims most dinosaurs were buried during the Genesis flood)
Or you could say that the Grand Canyon WAS formed during Noah's Flood (not in a "dam breach from a remnant inland sea", the Kaibab Uplift hypothesis, many decades later). And then explain how the dinosaurs presumably resident where the canyon formed managed to avoid being buried in the layers of the canyon during the flood (if the canyon formed less than 65 million years ago as scientists believe) but instead all managed to leave their "footprints in Navajo sandstone at levels thousands of feet higher than the canyon sediments" (which some dinosaurs did - more than 65 million years ago).
Posts: 8113
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - compulsive liar exposed

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:52 pm
" ... This is news to all the Christians and creationists who deny secular darlings like evolution and climate change (there is no evidence, after all) who are credentialed scientists. -CBB."

Posts: 8113
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - compulsive liar exposes himself

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:18 pm
"Haywire the stalker ignored the content during his "ego surfing" again, and is furious that he was called out on his inability to understand scientific principles that he pretends to know." (His latest bad tempered comment under where he flagged this very lengthy article of his: ... m=facebook)

HYPOCRITE, FRAUD AND BIGOT. YOU DELIBERATELY IGNORE ALL THE CONTENT OF MY REMARKS IN YOUR COWARDLY ATTACK. MY REMARKS RIGHT HERE AT 0.03 AND 2.09 AM BST TODAY. (So I didn't comment on the WHOLE of your very long article - OK I will now highlight that you admit "It's a mite too easy to say that the entire secular scientific community is suppressing physical evidence that conflicts with their view".)

And you are PATHOLOGICALLY DELIBERATELY LYING AGAIN. You FALSELY claim that you called me out on scientific principles. NO. I have called YOU out on science that you either did not know or were deliberately ignoring (I suspect the former) and your response to me doing so is to DO THE LATTER and launch another childish context-free personal attack to the rabble who read your pages, and call me 'Haywire the stalker' again.

Unrepentant liars go to hell (a lake of a fire) according to your religion.

2 Timothy 3:7b (NIV)
"... never able to come to a knowledge of the truth".

No wonder you don't do debates, fascist. You cannot win a debate by ignoring EVERYTHING your opponent says. (But you CAN behave in such a devious manner online.)

I repeat. The exposed rocks at the Grand Canyon are not too young for dinosaur fossils they are too old. Yet the CREV article you uncritically referenced implies the former. That article also falsely and ridiculously implies that some 'dam breach from a remnant inland sea' (the Kaibab Uplift of around 270 million years ago?) formed the Grand Canyon less than 5,000 years ago several 'centuries' perhaps after the 'global flood'.
Posts: 8113
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YECs with nothing pretending to have something

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:44 pm

CHartsil flagged this Sorensen post here: ... m=facebook

In turn, Sorensen was flagging this pile of poo (why did he bother) from Answers in Genesis: ... newgrange/

So I'll dig out my recent email on that subject:

"Further confirmation that humanity built structures, which still exist today, before the claimed worldwide flood of Noah that is part of AiG's 'biblical worldview timeline' in a '6,000 year old universe. Thanks, Dr Faulkner. ... cebook-aig ... r-1.263042 (Press article from 1999; Earth's axial tilt is currently declining as part of a 41,000 year cycle.) ... -1.1629602 (article from 2013)

According to the AiG article's subheading:
"An astronomer believes we can use this to recalibrate early dates to match biblical history."

Trouble is it seems he actually can do NO SUCH THING. The article explains:
"It would be exciting if we could confirm the age of the Newgrange site by comparing the alignment of the passage and roofbox to the winter solstice. Someone has already tried to do this, though his analysis is based on some unprovable assumptions.

Irish astrophysicist Tom Ray found that the winter solstice light floods the chamber four minutes after sunrise. The delay is attributed to slight changes in the tilt of the earth’s axis over the last few thousand years. Ray believes that the earth’s axis in 3150 BC would give the maximum lighting at sunrise on the winter solstice. It would even directly illuminate a spiral pattern on one of the smaller chamber walls. Thus, Ray thought he had confirmed the radiocarbon date [of 3150 BC].

At first glance, his deduction seems reasonable ..."

Those not banned by Facebook for allegedly breaching community standards have been criticising the article here:

AiG are trying to get Christians to undermine and attack science (and history). There's no 'alternative' science in the article. Just anti-science, science denial and the sowing of doubt and uncertainty. All in the name of religious belief ie 'biblical worldview Christianity'. Because all Faulkner can do is waffle about assumptions and then conclude with:
"Could the roofbox’s lighting serve a broader purpose than to mark a spot on the wall, as Ray’s theory requires? If creationists can identify a more reasonable scientific interpretation of the best alignment of the winter solstice sunrise with Newgrange], archaeologists could use this to find the true date and better calibrate radiocarbon dates.""

But Sorensen appears to welcome the Faulkner article and echoes the arrogant lying contained within it:
"In reality, a great deal of work needs to be done, without secular assumptions, to determine a more accurate date for Newgrange." More accurate than the correct date?
Posts: 8113
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests