YEC Bob Sorensen - compulsive liar exposed

[theealex]

Mr Gordons and Bob Sorensen are the same person. I don't know why he keeps using all these transparent sockpuppets.

[Roger Stanyard]

Mr Gordons and Bob Sorensen are the same person. I don't know why he keeps using all these transparent sockpuppets.

Jeez, where do these weirdos come from?

[delevin]

Mr Gordons and Bob Sorensen are the same person. I don't know why he keeps using all these transparent sockpuppets.

Is that true? What is the supporting evidence?

[jon_12091]

Mr Gordons and Bob Sorensen are the same person. I don't know why he keeps using all these transparent sockpuppets.

Jeez, where do these weirdos come from?

On the plus side that would mean weirdo singular rather than two.

Still using sock puppets isn't big or clever and it hardly lends credibility to the statements of the individual.

[cathy]

Still using sock puppets isn't big or clever and it hardly lends credibility to the statements of the individual.

Sock puppets? Is this literally using sock puppets or is it another computer term I've not come across?

[delevin]

Still using sock puppets isn't big or clever and it hardly lends credibility to the statements of the individual.

Sock puppets? Is this literally using sock puppets or is it another computer term I've not come across?

It refers to an individual who secretly maintains multiple identities in an online forum as a way to support his own positions or as a foil from which to reflect his own positions. Creationists are often charged with this behavior. But it seems to me that it must be difficult to prove, unless the same grammatical or spelling errors can be found in the posts of the various identities in question.

[Brian Jordan]

Creationists are often charged with this behavior. But it seems to me that it must be difficult to prove, unless the same grammatical or spelling errors can be found in the posts of the various identities in question.

They seem to be pretty adept at spotting them on RatSkep - but maybe they're just inundated with them! If MisterGordons is indeed Sorenson, he's not technically a sock puppet here as Sorenson isn't a forum member. So he's just using a pseudonym. OTOH it's not very ethical, if he is he, posting on a discussion of your alter ego. Likewise posting pseudonmously on your own blog (I think I've seen Gordons posting on Sorenson's) which takes sockpuppetry to a new level.

[a_haworthroberts]

YEC Issac Bourne - who certainly is not Sorensen and unlike Sorensen maintains a pretence of being accepting of comments under his blog posts - is speculating about Dawkins.
http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1585

I very much doubt that since writing his 2009 book Dawkins has secretly decided to 'give up' the fossil record (or geologic record) as one line of evidence supporting evolution over geologic time. Bourne may think he has come up with some clever points - though I personally find his wording rather garbled and his exact intended meaning often a bit unclear.

Point 1 - is he saying there are gaps between the ancient example of the living fossil and the ones which are alive today or died recently? The fossil record is incomplete. And often the species in question is subtly different;
Point 2 - false. And science's explainable mechanism(s) is/are much more plausible than 'water' (which for a YEC has to mean a violent tsunami-like flood catastrophe);
Point 3 - old creationist chestnut (pun unintended) and long since debunked;
Point 4 - so who did this presumed misleading burying of 'recent' fossils in 'ancient' layers? God? The devil? Dawkins?
Point 5 - "The Geologic Column or the fossil record does not exist in one piece anywhere in the world. It is estimated that if it did it would be just under 15 miles deep." By WHOM?

This is Bourne's link for what it is worth:
http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/05 ... il-record/
The website appears to belong to this chap:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_William_Nelson

Dawkins simply considers that there is other more compelling evidence for evolution over geologic time than the fossil record. At the start of chapter 6 of 'The Greatest Show on Earth' he wrote "we don't need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact" and referred to the fossil record as a 'bonus'.

The DarwinthenandNow blog post appears to build its 'case' solely on Dawkins' 2009 book.

[a_haworthroberts]

One for David Levin!
http://creation.com/multicellular-yeast

[a_haworthroberts]

Have tried to flag this thread HERE:
http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/05 ... ment-15592

Comment 'awaits moderation'.

[InfernalTank]

And another - sadly necessary - email (I should have checked TQEP page at Facebook first):
I DO understand science, Bob. It is abundantly clear however, Bob,
that you do NOT.
"

Basically all he can do is call you names and try to get shock to debate others.

How do you know that?

I've seen him do it on other pages, but he deleted his comments.

[delevin]

One for David Levin!
http://creation.com/multicellular-yeast

Shaun Doyle (CMI): "Another point is that evolutionists think yeast evolved (or devolved) from multicellular ancestors because they are fungi."

Yeah......no. Multicellular fungi evolved from single-celled fungal species, not the other way around.

[a_haworthroberts]

Have tried to flag this thread HERE:
http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/05 ... ment-15592

Comment 'awaits moderation'.

Richard William Nelson has now allowed my comment.

[delevin]

Ashley: "Richard William Nelson has now allowed my comment."


Ah, now there's a piece of work....quote-mining slimeball.

[ACLINSLEY]

http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2013 ... lical.html