YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

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 a_haworthroberts » Sat May 17, 2014 6:18 pm

Yet more garbage and pseudo-scientific propaganda:
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/05 ... n-for.html
"It has long been a puzzler for palaeontologists that there is such a wide mix of life forms as a result of the Ice Age".
NO IT HAS NOT. THIS IS A PUZZLE FOR YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS WHO DEMAND BASED ON SCRIPTURE ALONE (SCRIPTURE TIMESCALES) THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN ONE SINGLE 'ICE AGE'.
Real scientists have by contrast merely been puzzled that there was apparently a wider mix of life forms than now during the last Ice Age glaciations and during some previous interglacials.
"Uniformitarian explanations fail."
WHICH ONES? HOW DO THEY 'FAIL'?
"The problem is compounded because of their presuppositions; the data will not fit."
WHICH PRESUPPOSITIONS ARE THOSE? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? HOW IS IT COMPOUNDED? WHICH ARE THE DATA IN QUESTION AND HOW DO THEY 'NOT' FIT?

This is Sorensen's 'trump card'.
http://creation.com/disharmonious-associations
He proclaims: "Biblical creationists have alternative views that include the Genesis Flood. The data fit a Flood-caused Ice Age model far better than the secular versions".
HOW?

So I read Oard's article hoping to find out.

"Disharmonious or nonanalog associations refer to the strange mix of animals and plants from widely different climates or environments in the same sediment." He appears to be referring mostly to disharmonious associations from the Pleistocene. He informs us that 'uniformitarian' ice ages (he means glacials) were 'very cold'.

He then discusses past disharmonious associations found in Florida. He quotes from this paper:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8209004364
He then adds: "So their solution is a mild equable climate with a small seasonal contrast". Yes - but they are it would appear referring in part to glacial intervals (something YECs do not believe in) though also in part to the last North American glaciation. But they are NOT discussing the single 'Ice Age' that exists in the mind of people like Oard and Sorensen. Note also the comment in the Abstract: "these tropical and western taxa indicate the presence of biogeographic corridors during Plio-Pleistocene glacial intervals that connected the Florida peninsula to both the arid western United States and tropical Middle America". The discussion clearly covers a vast period of time, including when glacial intervals (interglacials) occurred - though for there to have once been a land bridge to tropical Middle America sea levels must have been lower than today.

He highlights a couple of 30 year old papers that suggested that previous interglacials as well as various Pleistocene glaciations saw levels of disharmonious associations that are not seen today. I am in no position to dispute this. But Oard then says: "Since previous interglacials are supposed to have been climatically similar to the Holocene or the current climate, such disharmonious associations for the previous interglacial as well as earlier ones imply that there were no previous interglacials".

So - if you ignore all the positive evidence for a series of Pleistocene interglacials and glacials - perhaps the YECs could actually becorrect that there has only been one 'Ice Age'? But does Oard in fact have a Flood-caused Ice Age model to which the 'data' fit 'far better' - as Sorensen is lazily claiming?

"Disharmonious associations and an equable climate are one of many evidences for a radically different Ice Age than uniformitarians believe - one caused by the climatic consequences of the Genesis Flood. Cool summers, especially over mid-and high-latitude continental areas, would be caused by volcanic ash and aerosols in the atmosphere immediately after the Flood catastrophe and reinforced by abundant post-Flood volcanism. Much warmer ocean water at mid and high latitudes than today, as a result of heat from the Flood, would cause warmer air above the ocean. Such warm sea surface temperatures would not only evaporate much more water vapor into the atmosphere needed for a rapid Ice Age, but would also release a lot of latent heat to the atmosphere by the condensation of water vapour. Such warming would be most effective in causing warmer winters than today, especially in areas of onshore flow of moist, warm air, such as the west coasts of North America and Europe. Cooler summers and milder winters, an equable climate, is exactly what the disharmonious associations imply, contrary to the bitterly cold temperatures of a uniformitarian ice age."

THAT DOES NOT SOUND MUCH LIKE AN 'ICE AGE' TO ME. Incidentally winter 2013-14 (the fifth mildest in the UK in over 100 years and the wettest winter UK-wide on record) saw vast snow depths in one location. The Cairngorm mountains - which are over 3000 ft high in many parts. But everywhere else there was no snow to speak of AT ALL.

But what about those hippopotami that used to live in Britain and have been found in the same locations or layers as cold-adapted species? "Warm, moist onshore flow by predominantly westerly winds would result in warm, wet winters in northwest Europe early in the Ice Age. Such a habitat would be congenial for hippopotami spreading out from the ‘mountains of Ararat’." (That's before creationist 'Ice Age' managed to turn rather ... cold.)

Now if Bob was really interested in science he would invite his readers also to read this post and tell me HOW I AM WRONG.

But then again - he loves to prevent people hearing a different viewpoint to his own as expressed. Thus comments are banned under his blogs - and he only ever refers to this community forum in a derogatory manner.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 17, 2014 6:41 pm

The evidence for multiple 'ice ages' consists of findings from ice cores and long-term changes to Earth's orbit around the Sun (eccentricity, axial tilt, precession).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Sorensen - rare moment of honesty

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 17, 2014 9:47 pm

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/05 ... scism.html
"OECs, TEs, atheists, agnostics, and others reject the authority of Scripture. Otherwise, they would see that evolution fails, creation science is the best explanation of the observed scientific evidence and that we are accountable to the Creator who is explained in the Bible."

Yeah. Stuff what scientific evidence really shows and really refutes. Keeping spreading pseudo-science dogma instead.

We're soon back to the Lies:
"They cannot defeat us with science." They already did. Before either of us was born.

Young Earth creationism - the 'response' - is a joke. Though apparently necessary in order to make a case that the whole of the Bible has 'authority' since intelligent and informed people, even in America and other conservative societies, fully know that scientific discoveries clearly show the opening chapters of Genesis to be myth.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby InfernalTank » Sun May 18, 2014 8:33 pm

bob has upgraded me from "atheopath" to "atheo-fascist". im so proud
InfernalTank
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:51 am

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:48 pm

The propaganda being pushed by Cowboy Bob Sorensen at The Question Evolution Project on 8 June:
"A huge problem for evolutionary cosmologists is the formation of Earth's moon. Several theories have been put forward that seem somewhat plausible at a glance, but have fallen apart with further scrutiny. Even the newest (fifth) hypothesis is already on the verge of being ejected. Of course (and as usual), the most logical conclusion is one that best fits the facts, but evolutionists do not want to consider that possibility. So, the Man in the Moon is having a good laugh at their expense..."

Meanwhile:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27688511
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6188/1146
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:40 pm

https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-ques ... 4740732736
"Some discussion is okay, as are questions and clarifications."
Ah! They must be talking about what is going to happen FROM NOW ON...
Since they then admit: "To try to maintain a pleasant environment, trolls are banned."
Yes - it's not pleasant to have ones foolish, unscientific or anti-scientific hardline beliefs challenged by people who - in some cases - have done their homework and know what they are talking about. Such people are 'trolls'! Even if they are respectful in tone (some are not) they must be accused of not actually having read what they seek to criticise, called a 'troll', rapidly censored and banned permanently from the site - and then in some cases attacked there AFTER they have been deprived of the right even to explain themselves. (A colleague of professing Christian 'Professor Tertius' has informed me that he was banned from Sorensen's facebook page recently and then accused of being an undeclared 'atheist'.)

But wait ... perhaps Bob really is talking about what will happen in future on his site ...
... rather than blatantly MISREPRESENTING what we all know has happened on his facebook page in the very recent past.

Time will tell.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:21 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-question-evolution-project/information-for-the-newcomers/660284740732736
"Some discussion is okay, as are questions and clarifications."
Ah! They must be talking about what is going to happen FROM NOW ON...
Since they then admit: "To try to maintain a pleasant environment, trolls are banned."
Yes - it's not pleasant to have ones foolish, unscientific or anti-scientific hardline beliefs challenged by people who - in some cases - have done their homework and know what they are talking about. Such people are 'trolls'! Even if they are respectful in tone (some are not) they must be accused of not actually having read what they seek to criticise, called a 'troll', rapidly censored and banned permanently from the site - and then in some cases attacked there AFTER they have been deprived of the right even to explain themselves. (A colleague of professing Christian 'Professor Tertius' has informed me that he was banned from Sorensen's facebook page recently and then accused of being an undeclared 'atheist'.)

But wait ... perhaps Bob really is talking about what will happen in future on his site ...
... rather than blatantly MISREPRESENTING what we all know has happened on his facebook page in the very recent past.

Time will tell.



"An atheopath wanted to grace us with his mighty intellect and tell us that we're wrong. Unfortunately for him, he does not have a mighty intellect, we are not wrong, and he also expressed some bigotry. I pressed a button and he fell through a trap door into the swamp below."
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman
Presumably the horrid troll pointed out the indifferent design features of the human eye? But of course Sorensen has censored the offending comment thus it is not possible to read what the 'atheopath' wrote. Just the QEP bigotry.

But it looks like Sorensen was talking balls again. (Good job he's not a Sunni Muslim fanatic living in Iraq.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:26 pm

More poison from a person claiming to be a biblical Christian (so is he being unbiblical or is being poisonous biblical?):
http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... -nuts.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:08 am

The people who conflate evolution with 'science' (adding quote marks to indicate their disgust) are the creationists not the 'evolutionists'.
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/06 ... ience.html
No 'evolutionist' says that evolution is the sum total of science. Every creationist thinks evolution (especially biological) is the sum total of what they declare is false 'science'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Liar (and YEC) Bob Sorensen. (And an ICR ideologue/denier.)

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:45 pm

Clearly liar Sorensen has ripped Revelation 21:8 out of his Bible. He thinks God has given him a special dispensation to lie about people who disagree with his anti-scientific 'worldview':
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/06 ... m=facebook
There is no proof of anything here that I can see. Just libellous assertions (and a load of links to no-doubt biased materials).

"Featured Article * "Setting the Record Straight, Answering Bill Nye". Although Bill Nye fans like to claim that he defeated Ken Ham in the February 2014 debate, his bad information and disingenuous tactics were not those of a winner. Worse for evolutionists and atheists, he prompted some people to actually think for themselves and look for answers to the issues that Nye raised. Answers in Genesis has many answers for Bill Nye and honest inquirers."
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman

Not this honest enquirer - who has never been a YEC even when a Christian believer (some would say that proves I was not 'saved' even in the past which implies that the saved must believe some things that are contradicted by reality as the saved are supposed to be 'biblical'). I am not satisfied by the 'answers' I have seen (and which Ken Ham mysteriously did not present on the night!).

Sorensen spits venom against Bill Nye every week. Not the actions of a person who really thinks Nye made a fool of himself on 4 February. But Sorensen whole reason for getting up in the morning is to REWRITE history.

Meanwhile here's another moronic YEC who apparently thinks that you can successfully claim that ANY science that shows Genesis (read as literal accurate and complete history) to be wrong is a house of cards built on 'circular reasoning' (and somehow those silly scientists who are not also YEC ideologues have not managed to notice):
http://www.icr.org/article/8195/

Brian Thomas. A man who thinks he has too much time on his hands - much too much time. "Secularists then assume that fossils reflect such cycles" (Milankovitch cycles - which Thomas denies have occurred since he denies deep time). Does he have an alternative explanation other than "subtle shifts in the tilt of the Earth's axis and its position relative to the sun"? Something to SHOW or at least strongly SUGGEST that scientists have ignored the probable - and instead indulged in 'circular reasoning' or confirmation bias?

What do you think?

Even if there unproven assumptions in the thinking of scientists regarding why fossils of a particular age look the way they do, which may be partly due to orbital forcing, YECs must show why the scientists have to be wrong (and Milankovitch cycles are not the explanation, and they have not occurred either, and neither has deep time, and nor has molecules to man evolution). I am still waiting for all that.

All we have from the science-hating YEC 'experts' at present is their dogma of shallow time.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:22 pm

http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... -word.html
Fundamentalism originated with the world's major religions, mainly Christianity and Islam (probably Judaism too). Not with unbelievers.
SOME atheists/unbelievers/secularists/non-Christians/anti-creationists/humanists exhibit 'fundie' type behaviour. Whereas almost ALL Christian creationists exhibit 'fundie' behaviour. For them it is 'required' and indeed they are sure they are doing 'God's will'. Notably complaining about victimisation. (And either censoring comments that show them to be wrong about scientific topics or else pretending they never saw the comments or that they previously 'refuted' them, or making blanket claims that they do not back up that the opposition is 'irrational' or 'illogical'.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby ProfessorTertius » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:21 pm

Bob Sorensen lives in an alternate reality. He censors and bans virtually anyone who exposes his nonsense, and then declares himself the winner of every debate. But one has to take his word for it because he usually deletes his opponent's most convincing posts (if not ALL of his opponents posts.) So clearly he has no confidence in his alleged victories. I've often had to read his one-side of the debate and imagine what his opponent must have said.

So even though people may initially think that Young Earth Creationists are very confident in their beliefs, their actions betray their thoughts. I don't think I've ever had one of my comments last on a Ken Ham webpage for more than 20 minutes. Some of those deletions weren't even negative comments nor were they critical of anybody nor offering an alternative viewpoint. Several have been simple questions which exposed huge gaps in AiG logic or factual errors and it is obvious that staff and/or volunteers are trained to eliminate any suggestion that emperor has no clothes.

By these standards, Bob Sorensen is one of the most insecure Young Earth Creationists I've ever encountered online. I know that many who visit his webpages for the first time suspect he is a Poe Player determined to make YECs look stupid. I was certainly suspicious of him in that regard.

{I've posted this comment to test my reset account on BCSE and some sort of programming glitch. So feel free to contact me at Bible.and.Science.Forum at the Gmail.com domain if something interesting is underway.}
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:58 pm

For the record, I don't think Sorensen is a poe just someone who is very ideologically driven and extremely assertive to the point of obnoxiousness on occasions.


EDIT: Sorensen/The Question Evolution Project has developed a pathological hatred for Bill Nye (I wonder why ...):
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman
"Yes, we've posted several things about Nye's exaggerations, bad logic, stinking attitude, lousy science and even blatant untruths. But atheopaths cheered for him because he was "brilliant". Lack of evolution belief is not the problem with science in America. Rather, it is the lack of thinking skills, and people who "think" with their emotions. Nye fanbois were happy about his boilerplate responses, and he didn't even need to show up, they'd still say he won."
"No, Nye didn't do his homework. His "evidence" had been dealt with by AiG and other creationists long ago, and he was very dishonest. Hovind would not have "obliterated" Nye, since Hovind used bad material. May have been a good match, bad arguments mixed with good ones for creation against bad arguments for evolution, but it would not have done people much good."

The man is a pathological liar and TQEP is a hate site.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby Peter Henderson » Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:55 pm

Funny how Bob thinks hyenas are a problem for "evolutionists"

I would have thought it was more a problem for creationists, since it's impossible to put them into either the cat or dog "kind".

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/07 ... m=facebook
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4208
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

YEC Bob Sorensen

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:45 pm

If you want to see more of Bob in action - there's this continuing set of exchanges (I see there are six new comments since I logged off last night; it's part of a broader blog and where the YEC in question actually allows comments - though I wonder whether that is because of the rules of 'Worldview Warriors' rather than because he is much interested in criticism):
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 3666016049
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
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 1 guest