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

Bob Sorensen - YEC liar for Jesus

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:03 pm

Email as just sent:





I think so.

I also think that his sidekick Jason Petersen is rattled - because he writes blogs criticising me and then censors ALL my attempted replies at the 'Speak Your Mind' comment box. This is what Sorensen ('Soldier315') calls taking me "to task". I call it dishonest censorship.

Judge for yourselves!

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2013/07 ... nions.html
No need to read of all this but please click on the underlined link "took a vociferous critic to task on his site".
(As you might guess, Bob does not allow any comments on his blog pronouncements!)

This is the Petersen post Bob links to (I am the 'mocker' he mentions - I dared to criticise an article about the moon that Petersen linked to in a previous blog post; on Facebook Petersen has acknowledged that there were numerous critics of the article but I was the only one who tried to address Ruby Faraday's arguments):
http://answersforhope.com/feedback-resp ... /#comments

I have ADDRESSED Jason's blog post of 5 July; my very detailed response which he has CENSORED and IGNORED can be read here (it's timed at 4.48 pm BST on 5 July):
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3220&start=180

In turn my further attempted response to what Bob wrote (calling himself 'Uncle Pilty') can be read at THIS BCSE link - timed at 11.00 pm BST on 7 July:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=390

There remains considerable uncertainty about the scientific accuracy of the Ruby Faraday article (which cites opinions of Answers in Genesis about the moon's rate of recession from Earth in the past). Also see here (Petersen has now made a second response to Peter L/Eye on ICR but whilst discussing some of the science Petersen also apparently censors part of Peter's comments and in addition declares the discussion to be over; so much for 'critical thinking' - and Peter L is studying science whereas Petersen has NOT studied the subject to my knowledge):
http://answersforhope.com/creation-astr ... /#comments

If you read my two responses linked to above and which Petersen has hidden (no doubt something Cowboy Bob would approve of) you will see that Sorensen and Petersen are liars beyond cure.

I DID read the original Ruby Faraday article and I did NOT misunderstand it. My criticisms of it have not been dealt with adequately by Petersen. Ruby at least has not censored my responses under her own blog drawing attention to my criticisms (which were mainly about how her article failed to define terminology).

If they had any integrity Sorensen and Petersen would admit all this on their blogs. Instead my responses to Petersen are read - and then deliberately censored so as to create a completely false impression to any other people who read their blogs.

Many Christians do not behave like them. But I have found that there is a correlation between how much you oppose science in order to defend Bible infallibility especially on a 'young' Earth, and how much you twist science and lie about and censor or ban those who criticise your peculiar claims.

Ashley Haworth-Roberts
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:27 pm

Oh dear, Earth-Moon distance again. It's a while since I looked at ramblings about this, but ISTR the conjectures they had to make to fit in with a mere 6000 years gave rise to hilarious consequences - like the moon scraping the surface of the earth, or some such nonsense. Still, it's nice when they reduce themselves to absurdity.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - LIAR for Jesus

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:23 am

Message sent to Ruby Faraday after Cowboy Bob libelled me here:
http://iperennial.wordpress.com/2013/07 ... rtunities/


"Ruby

Bob has LIED about me and Jason Petersen has censored me:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=405

Jason Lisle ALSO rudely censored me:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3237&start=75"

Sorensen, Petersen and Lisle are liars without cure.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:02 am

STILL waiting for Sorensen to tell us where Comet ISON (comet of the century or icy squib) is coming from.
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2013/07 ... de-of.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC liar Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:51 pm

Yet more evidence that Sorensen is a liar without cure:
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2013/07 ... -tail.html
Sorensen equates being sincerely wrong (it is argued) with being a liar who 'makes stuff up'.
Well, maybe Sorensen is sincere too but that does not make him a speaker of truth when he libels the dead such as Charles Darwin (if that were possible).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YEC liar Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:16 pm

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2013/07 ... ystem.html
''It becomes even more amazing when we know a bit about astronomy.

I'm STILL waiting for Cowboy Bob to inform me where he thinks comets come from ...
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2013/07 ... tions.html
It's not an 'old' question Bob.
Though it is starting to age as I speak.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jul 27, 2013 6:31 pm

Someone at the Question Evolution Project (not sure that it's Bob as it's not signed 'CBB') has posted a bit of a RANT which flags this piece:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-internet
Which insists simplistically and dogmatically: "There are professing believers who compromise the authority of God’s Word simply to accommodate the secular ideas of millions of years and evolution, which ultimately were developed to explain away God. Why would Christians give in to the lies of man by compromising with evolution or millions of years rather than believing the truth of Scripture? This compromise leaves the door open to doubting God’s Word as a whole, especially since it throws out God’s eternal truth for the changing opinions of man. If you question God on one thing, why not on another and another until you simply throw out His Word altogether? As we have stated many times before, a plain reading of Genesis 1–11—without any preconceived or worldly bias, knowing the Bible to be God’s inerrant Word—clearly indicates that evolution and millions of years are simply not true (see The Enns Justifies the Means? and It’s an Attack on the Son)".
For the full TQEP rant see: https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman

I note that the person quotes Jeremy Ham's comment that: "The very fact that many secularists give us so much attention, even negatively, makes one wonder if there is something more to it—as if underneath it all, they know there really is a God who created the universe" and he or she also asks: "why do compromisers and misotheists hate creationists so much that they want to ridicule?".

Bigot Ham also writes:
"Despite what others say, there will never be a piece of evidence contrary to the God of the Bible because He is the truth, and mankind knows it." Thus scientific investigation of the fossil record is a waste of time - it's simply a 'testimony' to Noah's Flood, End of Story. Science and the scientific method abolished, replaced by apologetics, and then dishonestly entitled creation 'science'.

NO Jeremy. NO TQEP. What I hate is attacks on science and knowledge and the deliberate dissemination of falsehoods - including false attacks on scientists - for the purpose of apologetics and giving stressed Christians who don't understand science or despise it 'answers' for sceptics.

See also: http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... an-mail-6/

A question for God (and AiG IF they can answer it). How can atheists and sceptics 'know' that a gospel message accompanied by bad, untruthful, bigoted science and false attacks on the scientific method is actually showing the TRUTH of the Christian (creator) God and the Bible? Why is it apparently necessary in the first place to LIE about reality in order to sustain in the 'modern' era any faith in the Christian God among those who are also pro-science and think that science can possibly account for (rare) life and the wider physical universe without any 'supernatural' presence or intervention?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:59 pm

Wide-circulation email as sent:




The latest effort by 'Piltdown Superman' is the trigger for this email.

http://creation.com/caves-and-age
As I more or less suggested to CMI, direct from within their website, if this article disproves that Earth could be older than a few thousand years then they should get the article published in a mainstream science journal so that the world can discover how its scientific understanding is faulty. Apparently it's something to do with: "The surface of limestone terrains above caves changes dramatically in short periods of time. And any change at the surface also changes the location of the water droplets inside the cave. However, the stalagmites do not indicate any changes. So the conclusion is simple: they cannot be that old".
Might it not be that the large speleothems we find have managed to grow in spots where the water continues to drip in the same approximate position for many millennia?
Should I also mention caves that have been under the sea for millennia having formed when the sea level was lower or the land surface raised higher than now (well I just did)?

Bob does not even quote the bit of the article that I refer to above in his propaganda piece here:
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2013/08 ... ution.html
Are other young Earth creationists proud of negative efforts like this one which contain lots of words but absolutely no scientific substance, whether for your position or against the position held by opponents of your position? (I suspect that either a 'no' or a 'yes' would be somewhat incriminating, for different reasons, but would gladly consider either response.)

As everyone knows, 'Cowboy' Bob Sorensen does not take comments on his blog posts.

Having been repeatedly censored by the likes of YECs Bob and his allies at 'The Question Evolution Project', Jason Petersen, Jason Lisle, Issac Bourne, the ICR (YOM), and Tony Breeden it appears I am now also being censored when trying to challenge an answer from Tas Walker of CMI at his own blog:
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/prelimi ... mment-6750
How did the YEC (extra-biblical) recent 'rapid' ice age manage to be followed by the rapid melting of glaciers from glaciation levels to their present levels in the compressed timescale that YEC 'creation science' requires?
"The mechanism is the cooling of the oceans."

Ah yes - YEC-ism, the answer to life the universe and everything!

And the YECs say their dogma is part of Christian dogma too.

I consider young Earth creationism intellectually and scientifically bankrupt.

A H-R
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

My exchanges with a YEC re the above

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:23 pm

"I can understand how you find YEC "intellectually and scientifically bankrupt", but I think you fail the accurately assess your own worldview with the same scrutiny. I've always said creation and evolution are both philosophies, not scientific positions.
~Tim Gilleand";

"My 'worldview' is that science (based on gradually acquired scientific knowledge) normally works.
And it certainly did not come from scripture.
But well done for trying to change the subject!
I've already been a (non-creationist but otherwise fairly traditional) Christian";

"Do you acknowledge that sciences that deal with historic issues that are no longer observable today (ex. dinosaurs from 65 million years
ago) requires faith?"

"Yes, reasonable faith";

""Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." - Richard Dawkins" (shown in large print for some reason)

":)"

"If you agree with Dawkins here, then you would admit that historical sciences such as claiming dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago require some faith and is therefore unscientific";

"No.
This is not the kind of faith Dawkins was talking about as far as I know.
I suspect he was talking about faith claims which are based on 'divine
revelation' and contradict science. Religious faith which instructs you
what to think.
Rather than inviting you to embrace discovered facts. Evidence-based
facts. Science facts.
Putting his quote in large print does not make it help your
'argument'.
I have kept a copy of this exchange since you are trying to wrongfoot
me";

"From Wikipedia / Fact:
"In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts"
We all have the same facts, we have different hypotheses or theories that interpret the facts.
You said "invitingg you to embrace discovered facts. Evidence-based facts. Science facts", yet things cannot be considered fact in science unless is observable - therefore since I've never witnesses a TRex 65 million years ago, I would say that is theory and not fact. The facts do not require faith, the theories do";

"You are playing with words. You are trying to claim that no scientific fact can be discovered that is not directly observable today. Which is anti-scientific nonsense - and I suspect only argued by YECs because the evidence does not support their worldview. Of course a measure of faith is sometimes needed - faith based upon the sum of the evidence. YEC faith rejects the obvious meaning of evidence.
If you wish to continue this discussion, please come here:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=405"







YECs are anti-science.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:44 pm

Gilleand is apparently unwilling to come here but is still sending me emails and appears to want to have the last word:

"I reject the premise of "the obvious meaning of the evidence". Scientific progress is made by questioning the obvious meaning and finding new information to re-write what we think we know. Scientific progress is made by believing we are wrong about what we think we know. :)".


I shall refrain from comment.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:48 pm

https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman
Oh dear, someone named Jordan Oldham is causing upset at TQEP (and he's a YEC - but apparently not towing the party line sufficiently convincingly for Bob and his allies - in the discussion flagging this propaganda blog: http://radaractive.blogspot.co.uk/2013/ ... fects.html)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:17 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman
Oh dear, someone named Jordan Oldham is causing upset at TQEP (and he's a YEC - but apparently not towing the party line sufficiently convincingly for Bob and his allies - in the discussion flagging this propaganda blog: http://radaractive.blogspot.co.uk/2013/ ... fects.html)


I see that the zealots have now hidden all of Mr Oldham's posts.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YEC LIAR Bob Sorensen

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 08, 2013 12:13 am

Pl see the Ray Comfort thread for details of Sorensen's latest online lying.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby InfernalTank » Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:02 pm

Me v Sorensen

Craig Farrell A combination of great video editing and ignorant interviewing..
Unlike · Reply · 1 · Thursday at 9:46am

Nate Franklin I think he should release the full interviews. Given his track record, I don't think he's honestly edited the footage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW05npbQHVs
When it's OK to lie: When you're lying for Jesus
The editing of the Ben Stein interview with Richard Dawkins is analysed in my vi...See More
Like · Remove Preview · 11 hours ago
The Question Evolution Project Can you back up your assertions, or are you going to be content to libel the man? Given your own trolling track record, I don't think Ray Comfort is likely to give in to the whims of a 12-year-old atheopath, huh, Poindexter? -CBB
Like · 2 hours ago
Nate Franklin http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Evolution ... ing_Darwin
Evolution (Way of the Master)
atheism.wikia.com
1 Episode Synopsis 2 Episode Walkthrough 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Street Interviews 2.3 Missing...
Like · Remove Preview · 8 minutes ago
Nate Franklin one here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nothing_Cr ... _Evolution
Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution - RationalWiki
rationalwiki.org
Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution is a book authored by Ray Comfort. The book was published in 2009.
Like · Remove Preview · 6 minutes ago
Nate Franklin http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jo ... 48051.html what was quote mined by ray in "genius" at 15:58
John Lennon, Darwin Doubter - Evolution News & Views
www.evolutionnews.org
Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution.
Like · Remove Preview · 2 minutes ago
Nate Franklin love your name calling, BTW
Like · a few seconds ago
InfernalTank
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:51 am

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:38 pm

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2013/08 ... edium.html
"I notice compromisers getting praise and support from atheists".
If Bob is correct, then most atheists care more about Christians accepting science than about them doubting the existence of God.
(I was not aware that David R Montgomery is a professing Christian, though he is not anti-Christianity so far as I know.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8949
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron