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

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby MisterGordons » Fri May 17, 2013 5:15 pm

By the way, I notice that the discussions of actual matters pertaining to science are secondary to bolstering wounded egos. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
MisterGordons
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:20 pm

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby cathy » Fri May 17, 2013 5:29 pm

Bob's opinion is irrelevant to either the conduct of science or the appreciation of reality.

Can you prove that? Your opinion is not 'science' you know.

I don't understand your statement MrGordons. Opinions ARE irrelevant to the conduct of science as Delevin says. If you want proof then just look at the science, look at the opinions of creationists or any other denier of reality and see how their opinions have very little to do with what the data shows. Evidence doesn't really respect opinions, some things you will like others you won't but the science doesn't much care.

Bob and the other creationists all have to deny huge swathes of reality to continue being creationists. Therefore it would also appear that their opinions are irrelevant to appreciations of reality too.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri May 17, 2013 8:18 pm

MisterGordons wrote:
delevin wrote:Bob's opinion is irrelevant to either the conduct of science or the appreciation of reality.

Can you prove that? Your opinion is not 'science' you know.


Yer, but Bob Sorenson appears to be scientifically illiterate. So precisely what is it you are trying to say? That science is just based on opinion?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Mister Gordons himself

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri May 17, 2013 9:26 pm

MisterGordons wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:I have also noticed that 'Mister Gordons' - who occasionally posts barbed comments here - rarely if EVER posts anything under that name at Sorensen's The Question Evolution Project Facebook page (though he has posted at Jason Petersen's blog I think).


I can see why people look up to you in admiration, you have a remarkable talent that should be applauded on the BBC Home Service. Leaving out irrelevant material such as my posting under other names so I do not join your stalking list is sheer genius.



It's lucky I don't indulge in quote-mining!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Issac Bourne - WHY?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri May 17, 2013 9:28 pm

MisterGordons wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Why does he blog and ask questions when he normally censors any replies he receives?
http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1579
Is he an egotist who wants people to assume "I've asked 'killer questions' than nobody has an answer to"?


I think you're making that up.



Why don't you post something taking issue with something in Issac's blog - and see what happens?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Mister Gordons himself

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri May 17, 2013 9:30 pm

MisterGordons wrote:By the way, I notice that the discussions of actual matters pertaining to science are secondary to bolstering wounded egos. Shouldn't it be the other way around?


Which website(s) are you referring to?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

More silly propaganda from Mister G

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri May 17, 2013 10:05 pm

http://answersforhope.com/a-challenge-f ... /#comments
"Still nothing? Expect bad reasoning if he does, I found this where someone else spanked him again but he still won’t learn http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/an ... l-science/"
Guess who he is referring to?
Breeden tried to 'spank' me but he could not - so he ended the conversation prematurely instead.
YECs cannot hack it.

If Young Earth Creationism is the Truth why does it so often masquerade as dishonest nonsense?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri May 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Bob Sorensen presenting some more biblical creation 'science' on his blog:
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2013/05 ... onist.html
(But does the Creationist Model in question support reality?)
Bob appears to be assuming that fossil parts of the dinos which left these tracks (in two locations) were also found - thus indicating they drowned in some sort of massive flood and were rapidly buried. I could see NO evidence that this was so.
Can you see it anywhere, Cowboy Bob? Or were the only fossils found the TRACKS - and nothing solid.
I have only seen the Abstracts of course. Have you read the full papers (I won't insist that you answer)?

This is the (clearly recent) ICR article in question
http://www.icr.org/article/7411/
"The evidence for the Flood is found all over the world. Trackways of swimming dinosaurs on many continents confirm the global extent of the cataclysm. Dinosaur track formation clearly required abnormal and catastrophic circumstances." Drivel.
The evidence presented in the peer-reviewed links shows that the dinosaurs were swimming not drowning. Unlike your average YEC when trying to discuss scientific evidence from the past.
Note also from the Abstract here (I had to search online for this link that Clarey mentioned):
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... ZatzRFwbIU
"We thus do not consider the Lark Quarry dinosaur tracksite to represent a ‘stampede.’"

PS Will also flag this at Eye on the ICR.

PPS The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh stood in mud today, in Cornwall. There was no flood that I am aware of.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8882
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby delevin » Fri May 17, 2013 11:37 pm

MisterGordons wrote:
delevin wrote:Bob's opinion is irrelevant to either the conduct of science or the appreciation of reality.

Can you prove that? Your opinion is not 'science' you know.


Actually, it is. I am a biological scientist and my work moves certain fields. So, yeah, my opinion on scientific issues about which I am expert is, actually, science.
Last edited by delevin on Sat May 18, 2013 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
delevin
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 8:14 pm

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby delevin » Fri May 17, 2013 11:41 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
MisterGordons wrote:
delevin wrote:Bob's opinion is irrelevant to either the conduct of science or the appreciation of reality.

Can you prove that? Your opinion is not 'science' you know.


Yer, but Bob Sorenson appears to be scientifically illiterate. So precisely what is it you are trying to say? That science is just based on opinion?


Roger, that is certainly what science deniers wish the scientifically illiterate to think. This goes a long way to explaining the ease with which they reject reality. As you know, some opinions are more important than others. In fact, a really nifty aspect of science is that only scientists get a vote. Not only that, but only scientists actively contributing to a field have the ability to change the minds of other scientists in that field. So, even non-specialists are not part of the discussion, much less non-scientists. They simply are not equipped to contribute. That does not stop creationists from asserting that their opinions are just as valid as those of working scientists. However, they make the assertion to each other and in the blogosphere, but it does not go further than that. It does not make its way into the world of science. This is why I wrote that Cowboy Bob's opinions are irrelevant to science. The scientifically illiterate have nothing to contribute to scientific thought.
delevin
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 8:14 pm

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby delevin » Sat May 18, 2013 1:27 am

cathy wrote:
Bob's opinion is irrelevant to either the conduct of science or the appreciation of reality.

Can you prove that? Your opinion is not 'science' you know.

I don't understand your statement MrGordons. Opinions ARE irrelevant to the conduct of science as Delevin says. If you want proof then just look at the science, look at the opinions of creationists or any other denier of reality and see how their opinions have very little to do with what the data shows. Evidence doesn't really respect opinions, some things you will like others you won't but the science doesn't much care.

Bob and the other creationists all have to deny huge swathes of reality to continue being creationists. Therefore it would also appear that their opinions are irrelevant to appreciations of reality too.


Regarding your first statement, I would only make the qualification that opinions are irrelevant to the objective evaluation of evidence, which is a straightforward application of logic to data. However, the opinions of experts in a field ARE relevant to the conduct of science, because those opinions dictate the direction of a discipline, the nature of the questions being asked, etc. My point was more specific - I was asserting that the opinions of scientific illiterates are irrelevant to the conduct of science.

Your second statement is spot on.
delevin
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 8:14 pm

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby delevin » Sat May 18, 2013 1:34 am

MisterGordons wrote:
delevin wrote:Ashley,

I rather like Sorensen's rant. Especially the part where he equates evolutionary theory to phlogiston theory of the 17th century, completely missing the facts that 1) YEC could be likened to phlogiston for its lack of supporting evidence and 2) that both phlogiston and YEC were abandoned by the scientific community hundreds of years ago.


Didn't quite catch on, did you? That's all right, you're perfectly suited to be here on the Ashley Ego Programme.


What is it that you imagine I missed?
delevin
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 8:14 pm

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby jon_12091 » Sat May 18, 2013 8:21 am

MisterGordons wrote:By the way, I notice that the discussions of actual matters pertaining to science are secondary to bolstering wounded egos. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Well we have to talk about something since creationists don't actually want to discuss what 99% of the scientific community consider science. Or would you care to debate paraconformities and the Flood selecting a blog post at random from the pile of fail?
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby delevin » Sat May 18, 2013 1:02 pm

Jon: "'Young Earth Creationism' allowing atheists to prove the Bible is wrong since 1961."

I quite like that! Henry Morris must be rolling in his grave....
delevin
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 8:14 pm

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby jon_12091 » Sat May 18, 2013 5:28 pm

Unfortunately, to a man, creationists are incapable of seeing that their hypothesis has a possible null outcome, because they cannot conceive they are wrong.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron