Sorensen and a couple of his ardent followers have been sending emails about myself and about this forum, which I have replied to [but the moderator of this forum needs to respond to one of the messages which is from someone claiming he has been 'banned' from the forum*]. Since Bob refuses to receive and read my emails (why could that possibly be
I am posting my response here for his information:
"(1) Bob's email:
"Nonexistent professor?" So are 'Professor Tertius'' messages generated by a robot or a computer rather than a human eh Bob? Pathetic. You know no more about his real identity than I do - but that does not stop you from making up your own 'facts' about him. (And then accidentally or deliberately not even copying him in - NB Prof Tertius, I am now doing so.)
Bob then wails "Yup, looks like he's done a passel of defamation, libel, and outright lying". Try to identify just ONE example of me 'lying' on the BCSE community forum, Bob. Just ONE.
And then there's another malicious LIE:
"How about where he started lashing out at Curtis Long and making things up about him? "... note the extreme nastiness of Curtis Long under Sorensen's apology"."
THIS is what Long wrote on Sorensen's facebook on 29 September (see attached photo) implying strongly that Prof Montgomery did not deserve an apology and also alleging that he was 'discredited' even though - as I have shown at the BCSE forum - Tas Walker failed to discredit him:
"Nice that you apologized to that discredited geologist."
That remark is what I was referring to, Bob. As you well know. In fact I now see that Long has also helpfully attached a photo of the same remark. He claims he was 'not' being nasty. You may care to judge for yourselves.
The people making up 'facts' are Sorensen, Long and Gordons.
(2) Bob's latest, weekend, attack:
While I am at it, let me deal with Sorensen's latest cowardly attack, here:http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2016/10 ... ality.html
(dated 8 October)
He is whinging about this recent set of postings (especially what I wrote in a couple of instances on 30 September):viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=51064&hilit=emperor#p51064
I acknowledged in that BCSE thread that Sorensen had apologised for totally misrepresenting Professor David Montgomery but queried why it had taken him so long (it was only when Montgomery complained by email) when I had pointed out Sorensen's error days beforehand. I also pointed out very misleading earlier online comments about Montgomery's views that had previously been posted by CMI's Tas Walker - which Sorensen appeared to take as 'gospel' (other than confusing Chinese flood with Black Sea flood). And I mentioned lying by another Sorensen supporter - one Curtis Long who I see Sorensen has chosen to copy in. I then let the matter drop. It has been dropped for more than a week.
So what has Sorensen to say about me on 8 October? These LIES (see my annotations within square brackets):
"There was a post I did about the legendary Emperor Yu and a "great flood" in China. In my introduction, I made a reference to a remark that a geologist made on how this flood may have been the source of the Genesis Flood legends, which I obtained from the article to which I had linked. A furious misotheist declared me a liar [Sorensen's statement was PLAIN WRONG - which of course is why he finally corrected it after the geologist in question emailed him; but I did NOT call Sorensen a liar. I wrote "unless you can provide chapter and verse showing that Montgomery suggested that this CHINESE (not Black Sea in case you are a teeny weeny bit confused) 'Great Flood' legend may have been the/a source of the 'Genesis Flood' you are (in this case) either sloppy and incompetent or else a pathological liar".] His "logic" was because he could not read the article in Science magazine, which required payment or membership in the American Association for the Advancement of Science [total LIES - I made my statement because I read an article by Tas Walker that Sorensen was highlighting, including Walker's links, and found a mismatch between the false claims by Walker and the false claim - now corrected - of Sorensen]. (Obviously, the creationary scientist to whom I linked has read the full article.) He was sure that what I cited was not said by the geologist [it was NOT], so I was declared "either sloppy and incompetent or else a pathological liar"." [and I have been vindicated - but only when the geologist himself intervened ie when I 'Haywire' tell the truth about his claims as I always seek to do Sorensen simply ignores me (because he has an agenda of producing false claims and totally dishonest propaganda and he does not like me upsetting his agenda with 'mere' awkward and contrary facts).]
Although Sorensen does not want his readers to do this (and they might not search online which is something he never encourages), you all can - if you choose to - read in full what I ACTUALLY said on 22 September, and see the proper context, here:viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=675
"http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2016/09 ... flood.html
"Geologist David Montgomery made an off-the-cuff speculation that legends surrounding this may have been the source of the Genesis Flood. That'll be the day!" WHERE, Bob?
"Bob: unless you can provide chapter and verse showing that Montgomery suggested that this CHINESE (not Black Sea in case you are a teeny weeny bit confused) 'Great Flood' legend may have been the/a source of the 'Genesis Flood', you are (in this case) either sloppy and incompetent or else a pathological liar.
WHICH is it?
I am sure Montgomery has NOT said what you claim he said 'off-the-cuff'. So it's either sloppy incompetence or deliberate lying.
If it is the former you will of course CORRECT your blog.
If it is the latter you will not.
If you are feeling unwell, I understand (I am feeling a little bit 'under the weather' this week with er a urinary tract infection)."
From reading his blog of 8 October and following the link to his amended earlier article of 22 September one would assume that the 'furious misotheist' was criticising Sorensen, on an 'unimportant forum', for no valid reason - and that it was only by sheer chance that I happened to be correct (but I knew my facts - and I also did not I repeat did not call Sorensen 'a liar' on 22 Sept). Non-regular readers of 'Piltdown Superman' might also not realise - because he fails to link to the BCSE thread - that it took Sorensen a WEEK to correct his rather silly and basic error of 22 September even though I highlighted it on a forum that he regularly looks at. And that he ONLY did this after the geologist in question complained to him via email. This is how Sorensen deceives his followers - and demonises persistent opponents.
There's yet more Sorensen lying on 8 October, viz "Suppose an atheist dislikes something a creationist says because he cannot deal with the content [Sorensen's claim that I "cannot deal with the content" is 100% UNTRUE (and of course malicious).] He usually tries to finagle a way to demonize the creationist and get others to join in."
And even MORE lying:
"The atheopath tried to "correct" me [NO - I tried to correct him not 'correct him you liar - you were plain wrong and I KNEW it] by posting in an unimportant forum, but was using bad reasoning [garbage] and correcting the wrong thing, [garbage] since Science magazine was the wrong place to look for the quote. When the geologist that I misquoted included me in a group mailing, I saw where my error was [you are either stupid or a malicious liar because you should have seen that you were plain WRONG as soon as you saw my post of 22 Sept], corrected it, and issued an apology (for which he thanked me in an e-mail). The angry atheopath is now congratulating himself for something that he not only had wrong himself [LIAR LIAR LIAR I had NOTHING 'wrong' about Sorensen's stupid mistake], but was only marginally involved in getting my attention to correct the wording. [I NEVER tried to take the full credit Liar Sorensen, I wrote on 30 Sept "yours truly helped engineer the apology".]
And there's more!
"Many times, he has called me "evil" [that's true!] and is constantly playing the "Gotcha!" game (looking for something to ridicule) [and Bob provides plenty of falsehoods for me to enjoy exposing], as well as inaccurately calling all biblical creationists "liars" [I have met/read the words of about three online who appear not to be liars - Todd Wood, David Bump and Kurt Wise]. He has no credibility, so there was no need for me to consider his incoherent rants [I have plenty of credibility which is why you keep targeting me or my words!].
And there are these strange laments from Bob:
"Others who challenged the religion of evolutionism that dominates the Bigots Constructing Secular Evolutionism forum are attacked and driven away, yet Haywire insists that I join and "debate" there." Bob's a coward. But I suppose that if I had made repeated false accusations against people that I could not possibly defend or justify, I too would hesitate to visit a forum frequented by all the people that I falsely libelled (especially if some of them clearly understood science better than me as well).
I know of NO YEC who was driven away from the BCSE forum by me. Rather I have INVITED Bob to come there are defend himself and engage properly one to one with some of his various critics instead of demonising them from afar in a 'safe' venue where he gets to control who may and may NOT make any comments. But so far he has failed to 'man up' (Gordons at least has the guts to try and justify himself at the BCSE) - and that does not look like changing any time soon!
(3) Previous Sorensen blog claim (I do realise you may be stifling a yawn due to reading about this person's misdemeanours by now so feel free to omit or postpone reading Part 3 - and go straight to the Conclusion of this message):
Meanwhile, since we are talking about the proclamations of Sorensen, three of us (me, Tertius and one other person who has been spared these emails from Gordons and Sorensen) have recently had a vigorous email discussion (I initially copied Sorensen in) about one aspect of his recent claim here:http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2016/10 ... -menu.html
"The overwhelming majority of fossils are marine invertebrates, and we get fish, plants, and so on. Mammals, not so much... Since the "fossil record" is kind of catawampus (the fossil progression only existing in textbooks and evolutionary propaganda videos), the best explanation for what is actually observed in the strata is the Genesis Flood."
Bob needs to understand that much of the marine fossil record dates from the Permian extinction - when there were widespread anoxic conditions throughout the oceans. Which means that no violent flood was required to 'rapidly' bury the deceased - gentler less fast burial would still have sufficed in the very low oxygen conditions, as there would have been very few scavengers or bacteria around. By contrast the flood as described in Genesis 6-8 - please read it if you doubt me - should not (if it created the fossil record as Sorensen says it did) have led to a fossil record where 95% of it, a figure YECs do not dispute, is marine invertebrates and by contrast land mammals, birds and crawling land invertebrates - the creatures specifically mentioned in Genesis - are rather poorly represented.
The lying of Sorensen against opponents like me, highlighted here, is not accidental. It is cold calculated deliberate lying and smearing. He also knows that if he deliberately fails to provide full details and all the appropriate links, it will be difficult for his often crazed and bigoted followers to 'fact-check' and find out that he is spinning them a yarn for propaganda purposes (assuming they have an interest in facts and Bob cannot take the risk that NONE of them do). He also hopes I will be too tired to deal with his lies, because it is all rather time-consuming to deal with them. But, sorry Bob - NO such luck.
These people are evil.
Please fact-check me. I've nothing to hide and I encourage this.
* Addendum at 3.48 pm BST on 10 October; I see that the moderator has now confirmed that Gordons has not been banned.