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 Peter Henderson » Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:20 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:Well, I don't know what you said Peter because it hasn't been published. Just THIS retort which tells everybody else NOTHING: "Why should I answer a question that is nothing but lies? I have no need to defend a position that I do not hold. Your logical fallacy of equivocation is noted."


I asked him what research he'd done that shows the science taught in all schools, colleges, and universities everywhere is so funamentally wrong, and what his science background was.

Clearly, these questions are too difficult for Mr. Sorenson to answer.

You should try and alert somebody like thunderf00t, potholer54, or cdk007 who all do excellent Youtube videos debunking this kind of rubbish Ashley. thunderf00t, while being somewhat Atheist, did an excellent job on venomfang X and eventually had him banned from Youtube (due to some sort of legal dispute).
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:32 am

I see Bob knows how to be dishonest and misrepresnt both science and Christianity:

I have noticed that most atheists confuse "science" and "personal interpretations of scientific facts" as being the same thing. They are not. Darwinism is a metaphysical, philosophical interpretation (one of many) of certain scientific realities we observe in the real world. It is not "science" in itself. The "Scientific Method" entails a process of observation and experiment in order to ascertain what is real and what is not, and is concerned ONLY with the physical world and its related phenomena. It is wholly inadequate in and of itself in determining such things as to whether God exists (or what He is like), how the universe came about, where human beings came from, why humans act the way they do, etc. Webster's Dictionary defines "science" primarily as "the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding". It also defines it as "a department of systemized knowledge as an object of study (i.e., the science of th...eology)." Webster's defines "theology" as "the study of God and His relation to the world". In the past, the word "theology" was mostly applied to Biblical Christianity and Judaism, which together have a far more extensive and cohesive understanding of who and what God is than any other religious belief system does (and that understanding is based primarily on historical people and verifiable historical events, not some particular guru's imagination). Darwinian evolution happens to be an academic and intellectual "fad" right now in university circles; it is nothing more than that. Up until about 150 years ago the idea of Divine Creation was universally accepted in pretty much all social and academic circles. It is still popular -- and widespread -- in most philosophical circles today. But you only hear about the Darwinism point of view in the major media today because most modern media people are liberal, secular, and non-religious; therefore they only report the point of view that pleases them -- Darwinism -- and deliberately and willfully ignore (or greatly misrepresent) everything else. This in itself greatly influences the intellectually lazy, generally low-information-based public today into believing that "science has disproved God and the Bible". It has not. Rather the opposite: if the real, basic, objective scientific facts that we know today are interpreted through the lens of the reality of the God of the Bible, they work very well. In fact, they work FAR better than interpreting them through the Darwinistic point of view does
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 am

"This in itself greatly influences the intellectually lazy, generally low-information-based public today into believing that "science has disproved God and the Bible". It has not. Rather the opposite: if the real, basic, objective scientific facts that we know today are interpreted through the lens of the reality of the God of the Bible, they work very well. In fact, they work FAR better than interpreting them through the Darwinistic point of view does."
Circular reasoning and wishful thinking, Bob.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:14 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:"This in itself greatly influences the intellectually lazy, generally low-information-based public today into believing that "science has disproved God and the Bible". It has not. Rather the opposite: if the real, basic, objective scientific facts that we know today are interpreted through the lens of the reality of the God of the Bible, they work very well. In fact, they work FAR better than interpreting them through the Darwinistic point of view does."
Circular reasoning and wishful thinking, Bob.



I was thinking more that scientists knew the Earth was very old long before 150 years ago Ashley. The Early geologists that rejected the flood as an explanation for the fossil record weren't Atheists, but Christians.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:52 am

Peter Henderson wrote:I see Bob knows how to be dishonest and misrepresnt both science and Christianity:

I have noticed that most atheists confuse "science" and "personal interpretations of scientific facts" as being the same thing. They are not. Darwinism is a metaphysical, philosophical interpretation (one of many) of certain scientific realities we observe in the real world. It is not "science" in itself. The "Scientific Method" entails a process of observation and experiment in order to ascertain what is real and what is not, and is concerned ONLY with the physical world and its related phenomena. It is wholly inadequate in and of itself in determining such things as to whether God exists (or what He is like), how the universe came about, where human beings came from, why humans act the way they do, etc. Webster's Dictionary defines "science" primarily as "the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding". It also defines it as "a department of systemized knowledge as an object of study (i.e., the science of th...eology)." Webster's defines "theology" as "the study of God and His relation to the world". In the past, the word "theology" was mostly applied to Biblical Christianity and Judaism, which together have a far more extensive and cohesive understanding of who and what God is than any other religious belief system does (and that understanding is based primarily on historical people and verifiable historical events, not some particular guru's imagination). Darwinian evolution happens to be an academic and intellectual "fad" right now in university circles; it is nothing more than that. Up until about 150 years ago the idea of Divine Creation was universally accepted in pretty much all social and academic circles. It is still popular -- and widespread -- in most philosophical circles today. But you only hear about the Darwinism point of view in the major media today because most modern media people are liberal, secular, and non-religious; therefore they only report the point of view that pleases them -- Darwinism -- and deliberately and willfully ignore (or greatly misrepresent) everything else. This in itself greatly influences the intellectually lazy, generally low-information-based public today into believing that "science has disproved God and the Bible". It has not. Rather the opposite: if the real, basic, objective scientific facts that we know today are interpreted through the lens of the reality of the God of the Bible, they work very well. In fact, they work FAR better than interpreting them through the Darwinistic point of view does


Captain Bob is just another authoritarian fundamentalist prick who is pathologically incapable of recognising that other people are capable of making up their own minds. With this turgid piece of semi-incoherent rubbish he's managed to create bogeymen out of the universities, the media and the public at large (the entire population of the USA) for "evilutionism" and, to boot, fails to recognise that 95% of the population of the USA believes in or goes along with the idea of God.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:11 am

He's also one arrogant ponce Roger:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people objecting to our position and having civil discourse. Once the insults start, they're gone. I do not understand how many warnings and reminders it needs to take for people to get the simple concept of treating others the way you want to be treated. If you come in here with an offensive and delusional attitude thinking you're intellectually and morally superior, I say, "Toodles to you." Go find something else to do. ~Ashley
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:02 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:He's also one arrogant ponce Roger:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people objecting to our position and having civil discourse. Once the insults start, they're gone. I do not understand how many warnings and reminders it needs to take for people to get the simple concept of treating others the way you want to be treated. If you come in here with an offensive and delusional attitude thinking you're intellectually and morally superior, I say, "Toodles to you." Go find something else to do. ~Ashley


Even his best friends would not describe Captain Bob as an intellectual.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:24 pm

Here's Cowboy Bob in action on the Bob Enyart live radio show:

http://networkedblogs.com/HicvN

http://kgov.com/cowboy-bob-and-the-ques ... on-project

Notice Bob is lying about the David Coppedge case:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/01 ... y-win.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Enyart

Enyart is a proponent of corporal punishment of children saying that their "hearts are lifted" by spanking.[7] He was convicted for misdemeanor child abuse in 1994 after beating his girlfriend's child with a belt so hard that the beating broke the skin.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:28 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:He's also one arrogant ponce Roger:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people objecting to our position and having civil discourse. Once the insults start, they're gone. I do not understand how many warnings and reminders it needs to take for people to get the simple concept of treating others the way you want to be treated. If you come in here with an offensive and delusional attitude thinking you're intellectually and morally superior, I say, "Toodles to you." Go find something else to do. ~Ashley


The sometimes foul-mouthed Alex Botten on Facebook, reacting to Cowboy Bob's facebook page (he is understandably confused about the identity of 'Ashley' - either there's an administrator with that name or he is using my name falsely):
"If you come in here with an offensive and delusional attitude thinking you're intellectually and morally superior, I say, "Toodles to you." Go find something else to do" - considering she (he?) has just described Bob and most of the other admins, is she going to ban them all?"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:36 pm

A supportive comment on Mr Sorensen's Facebook page:
"Remember WHO and WHAT we are dealing with. These "intellectuals" believe that they are related to mud. The Darwinian Evolutionist exists in a make-believe, alternative reality where they have proclaimed themselves to be a god. They sit for hours playing their Satanic, mind numbing video games while dreaming-up new and improved ways of rebelling against Almighty God. In many cases, they have been deeply scarred psychologically and are FULL of hatred and anger. These sinners have no comprehension of reality and cannot be reasoned with. They have no concept of true love or joy and they carry the heavy burden of knowing that "SOMETHING" is dreadfully wrong, but NOT knowing what it is or what to do about it. Please pray for all the people who visit our FB pages. God knows who they are and what they need. He alone can change their hearts...I know because He changed mine and SAVED ME! PRAISE and GLORY TO GOD!"
And then Bob again:
"Ashley restated what I fully believe.
I missed some interesting things after I turned in last night (Eastern Time Zone). Good comments. I'd like to support Jessica and Tom, I've experienced it many times in many places where they act like angry school children who are plotting against the teacher that disciplined them, and simply lash out with ridicule instead of anything resembling reason. There is a Page on FB dedicated to attacking this Page with "science", but instead, it is a juvenile hate fest directed mainly at me, personally, as well as the Project. You will not find intellectual prowess there. And Donald, I can't add to or improve on your comments, either! Brad probably knows that I agree with him on the intellectual laziness. Jonathon is right about the indoctrination aspects. Too bad their attitudes are too childish to even listen to an alternative point of view. I believe that many of them are demonically influenced, their actions prompt me to think this. -Cowboy Bob".
And 34 people 'liked' the original rant.
Brainwashed the lot of them.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:39 pm

And there's another rant visible on his Facebook page:
"I have noticed that most atheists confuse "science" and "personal interpretations of scientific facts" as being the same thing. They are not. Darwinism is a metaphysical, philosophical interpretation (one of many) of certain scientific realities we observe in the real world. It is not "science" in itself. The "Scientific Method" entails a process of observation and experiment in order to ascertain what is real and what is not, and is concerned ONLY with the physical world and its related phenomena. It is wholly inadequate in and of itself in determining such things as to whether God exists (or what He is like), how the universe came about, where human beings came from, why humans act the way they do, etc. Webster's Dictionary defines "science" primarily as "the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding". It also defines it as "a department of systemized knowledge as an object of study (i.e., the science of theology)." Webster's defines "theology" as "the study of God and His relation to the world". In the past, the word "theology" was mostly applied to Biblical Christianity and Judaism, which together have a far more extensive and cohesive understanding of who and what God is than any other religious belief system does (and that understanding is based primarily on historical people and verifiable historical events, not some particular guru's imagination). Darwinian evolution happens to be an academic and intellectual "fad" right now in university circles; it is nothing more than that. Up until about 150 years ago the idea of Divine Creation was universally accepted in pretty much all social and academic circles. It is still popular -- and widespread -- in most philosophical circles today. But you only hear about the Darwinism point of view in the major media today because most modern media people are liberal, secular, and non-religious; therefore they only report the point of view that pleases them -- Darwinism -- and deliberately and willfully ignore (or greatly misrepresent) everything else. This in itself greatly influences the intellectually lazy, generally low-information-based public today into believing that "science has disproved God and the Bible". It has not. Rather the opposite: if the real, basic, objective scientific facts that we know today are interpreted through the lens of the reality of the God of the Bible, they work very well. In fact, they work FAR better than interpreting them through the Darwinistic point of view does. -- KH"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:44 pm

Followed by:
"Yes, Darwinism is a scientific theory. But it has NOT been proved; not only that but there is MUCH negative evidence to suggest that it is NOT true. But many people (including diehard secularists and atheists) have latched onto Darwinism as an intellectual excuse for their disbelief in God, and because of that fact they will NOT under ANY circumstances admit that it has ANY negative evidence going against it. Not only that, but many of them (out of total dogmatic intellectual desperation) inaccurately insist on calling Darwinian evolution a "proven fact", which it is NOT. Limited change within a species (i.e., adaptation, or micro-evolution) is a proven fact; that one species of animal can EVER change into another (and that all species are related to each other in this way, having originally "evolved" from a single one-celled creature -- or macro-evolution) is NOT. Also, science cannot "prove" how old the Earth is. Radioactive dating methods are extremely unreliable, as they depend on many unscientific assumptions (such as that the rate of decay of the radioactive elements involved has been constant throughout the ages, etc.). Even "natural selection" is not scientifically proven; you cannot recreate this phenomenon in a laboratory, and no one has ever observed it happening (remember "observation and experiment"?). These are unproven theories based on observable facts that do not prove the theory one way or the other. We are not talking about simple hardware and software advances here (like atomic energy, spaceships, lasers, CT scans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, etc.). That is totally different than insisting that science has "proved" something that it is not capable of witnessing or repeating in a lab (such as the age of the earth, or God's existence). -- KH"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:47 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:A supportive comment on Mr Sorensen's Facebook page:
"Remember WHO and WHAT we are dealing with. These "intellectuals" believe that they are related to mud. The Darwinian Evolutionist exists in a make-believe, alternative reality where they have proclaimed themselves to be a god.


One wonders if Cowboy Bob is capable of irony given that he uses the name cowboy. In the UK the term cowboy usually refers to unskilled and untrained people who, through fraud, pass themselves off as "professionals".
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:30 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:A supportive comment on Mr Sorensen's Facebook page:
"Remember WHO and WHAT we are dealing with. These "intellectuals" believe that they are related to mud. The Darwinian Evolutionist exists in a make-believe, alternative reality where they have proclaimed themselves to be a god.


One wonders if Cowboy Bob is capable of irony given that he uses the name cowboy. In the UK the term cowboy usually refers to and unskilled and untrained people who, through fraud, pass themselves off as "professionals".


Indeed Roger. We have TV programmes such as "Cowboy builders" and "the cowboy trap". Clearly Bob is so thick he's unaware of this. Is he promoting cowboy science ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - timeline

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:53 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:"This in itself greatly influences the intellectually lazy, generally low-information-based public today into believing that "science has disproved God and the Bible". It has not. Rather the opposite: if the real, basic, objective scientific facts that we know today are interpreted through the lens of the reality of the God of the Bible, they work very well. In fact, they work FAR better than interpreting them through the Darwinistic point of view does."
Circular reasoning and wishful thinking, Bob.



I was thinking more that scientists knew the Earth was very old long before 150 years ago Ashley. The Early geologists that rejected the flood as an explanation for the fossil record weren't Atheists, but Christians.


Ah yes, but they weren't biblical creationist Christians - unlike most of this lot on the linked video were (apparently, says Bob): http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... heism.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 9 guests

cron