YEC Bob Sorensen - compulsive liar exposed

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/TQEPDebunked/?hc_location=ufi
Today flagging this - as flagged by Sorensen:
"The biblical 'kind' is useless as the definition is warped as creationists need it to be."

Indeed, so. Or am I being unKIND.

[a_haworthroberts]

Via wider circulation email.

Gordons:
"Once again Ashley Haworth-Roberts is showing his inability to be civil. He is angry because he cannot create his own reality. He cannot accept the consequences of his actions. He is a liar which I have demonstrated several times including the fact that he refuses to keep his word regarding removing me from his spam mailings."

My reply:
"If you had not already guessed, Gordons is nothing but a nasty Sorensen apologist and a career troll who has been falsely accusing me of being a 'liar' for years.
search.php?keywords=trollitis&fid%5B0%5D=18 (please see this)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=51671&hilit=cyber#p51671 (replying to this trolling)

This is further evidence that the Sorensen camp are behind the indefensible and unjust decision by Facebook to ban me for 30 days. I tell the truth about The Question Evolution Project on other pages - and Sorensen, Long and Gordons become incandescent. They prefer the alternative reality of young earth creationist pages where ONLY posts agreeing with the page in question are tolerated. All the copy recipients who know me (most of them know me personally) know that while I have faults lying IS NOT ONE OF THEM. And there have been plenty of messages from me that were NOT copied to Gordons - but these were because he is one of the suspects in causing the indefensible ban I have received from Facebook. I defy Gordons to IDENTIFY 'lies' by me in the following:
"This being that earlier lying by Sorensen, echoing ICR lying. http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2017/08 ... m=facebook See Wikipedia: "The research team therefore believes that H. naledi is not a direct ancestor of modern humans, although it is probably an offshoot within the genus Homo". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_naledi The YECs falsely argued that Homo naledi is an 'evolutionary failure' simply because it might not have been a direct human ancestor. This lie being echoed in Sorensen's 1 October article when he claims because that new members (such as Homo naledi) are sometimes quietly removed from the 'ancestral parade' later on therefore evolution is simply 'mythology'. But I must CORRECT my first comment. I misremembered - although it was around more recently than originally thought Homo naledi was around in South Africa between 335,000 and 236,000 years ago."

The significance of the comment was explained at this post at 2.50 am on 5 October - which Gordons is AWARE OF but is DELIBERATELY IGNORING:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=51667&hilit=misremembered#p51667"

Curtis Long (administrator at 'The Question Evolution Project' and the person I suspect of complaining to Facebook about my recently removed posts at 'The Question Evolution Project Debunked'):
"The only things this proves is that the cowboy is right, and Hitler-Robbers is deranged. He just proved he's a liar again. I don't want your crap either, minion. I can't believe you're so stupid you antagonize very dangerous people like Gordons."

My reply:
"Curtis Long is a fascist and a bully. As some of you already know, last autumn I reported some messages from him to the local police here in England (even though he is in America).
Copy recipients will form their own opinion of his message. Which contains no substance and plenty of hatred. Funny how young earth creationism and right wing hatred and intolerance so often go together.
Should Long repeat his 'Hitler-Robbers' jibe on Facebook (which I will report if he does) I trust that Facebook will REMOVE his post and slap a BAN upon him? Fair's fair after all. Assuming Facebook care about fairness.
And Long has just told the world that Gordons is 'dangerous'. Who am I to argue?"

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/TQEPDebunked/?hc_location=ufi

(1)
"If you ever develop the courage to debate, Bob, just let me know.
You're not blocked and I'll be here.
Any fans of the question evolution project pages are welcome to try to defend the tripe found therein as well. If you realize you can't, I understand."

'Like.'

(2)
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2017/10 ... m=facebook
"One of the popular speculations about the origin of Earth's moon is that a celestial body was unable to stay in its traffic lane, lost control, and smacked into Earth way back when. This would explain the absence of lunar water to the satisfaction of naturalists who deny the truth of recent creation.
Even a cursory consideration of this idea shows that it is ridiculous. After all, the moon is the perfect size to obscure the sun during a total eclipse, and the moon is necessary for keeping life on Earth working efficiently. It has that almost-circular orbit and all. Rocks that Apollo astronauts brought back were tested in 2008 and found to have water, but that didn't seem to make an impression. Now that the moon can be studied from a distance, scientists learn that there is indeed water in the rocks. But it shouldn't be there according to proponents of the impact hypothesis."

"Got a source for this ever being an actual claim?" Sorensen cites a creationist article by Brian Thomas of the ICR which provides various links. Including this one:
http://news.brown.edu/articles/2017/07/moonwater
"The idea that the interior of the Moon is water-rich raises interesting questions about the Moon’s formation. Scientists think the Moon formed from debris left behind after an object about the size of Mars slammed into the Earth very early in solar system history. One of the reasons scientists had assumed the Moon’s interior should be dry is that it seems unlikely that any of the hydrogen needed to form water could have survived the heat of that impact.
“The growing evidence for water inside the Moon suggest that water did somehow survive, or that it was brought in shortly after the impact by asteroids or comets before the Moon had completely solidified,” Li said. “The exact origin of water in the lunar interior is still a big question.”"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b ... o-the-moon
The lunar collision hypothesis was discussed on this TV programme which I watched last night (from around 18 minutes in). Because lunar and Earth rocks appear so similar they are postulating an extremely violent collision involving a third object which was vaporised. They did not directly address the water/possible watery interior issue.
Meanwhile from around 8 minutes in, ground up rock samples gathered by Apollo missions are examined - investigations suggest that rocks elsewhere on the moon may contain water only in the hundreds to tens of parts per million (more than previously thought but the rocks are not exactly as wet as many Earth rocks, though this does point to a potentially watery lunar interior).

So in summary, the ICR does seem to raise valid issues about how the violent early solar system collision led to the moon holding as much water (and hydrogen) as it apparently does. Though the fact that the moon is large/near enough to block the whole sun during most solar eclipses is of no benefit to life on Earth - just a source of wonder for humanity.

[a_haworthroberts]

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2017/08/basic-geological-models-of-genesis-flood.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Why are there apparently NO dinosaur fossils anywhere in the Grand Canyon, Bob? Real science can explain why not. Science that is not forced into error by incorporating a fictional recent literally global flood. And instead starts with material EVIDENCE.

That article by Hebert contains nothing but pseudo-science and made-up claims. Because the ICR are not open-minded scientists. They are religious fanatics with an AGENDA. To persuade people that the book of Genesis is 'infallible' scientifically and historically. It is NOT. I used to be a Christian but I NEVER believed that it was (it didn't matter then now it strengthens my belief that there is probably no god because you WOULD expect infallible writings if they were the thoughts of a god).

"it cannot be explained by their belief system ...". Oh yes it CAN. Try eg googling Grand Canyon no dinosaur fossils. YECs have no plausible answer to the conundrum (short of admitting these creatures really DID go extinct around 65 million years earlier than their 'recent global flood').

Sorensen is STILL lying and STILL attacking me for exposing him as a liar and STILL displaying his utter ignorance:
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2017/10 ... ssils.html
"An example of this is when someone foolishly uses a fallacious argument from silence to imply that, since no dinosaur fossils have been discovered at the Grand Canyon, the Genesis Flood is false [http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=885#p51616] Someone like that needs to do some research instead of showing his ignorance of both creation and secular models [https://crev.info/2015/06/did-dinosaurs-see-the-grand-canyon/]
https://crev.info/2015/06/did-dinosaurs ... nd-canyon/

My argument is NOT foolish. By young earth creationist reasoning (which is not in the Bible) if the Genesis flood (its receding waters and uplift/rebound) formed the Grand Canyon (which is absolutely vast Bob) and dinosaurs perished during it less than 5,000 years ago, then some dinosaur fossils should have been found there - as David Coppedge at CREV admits is NOT the case thus destroying YEC arguments about the Genesis flood (a worldwide flood is also impossible). I have DONE research which is why I made my comment. And the real issue is the age of the EXPOSED LAYERS at the Grand Canyon, NOT when the canyon was formed by the Colorado River. They are TOO OLD for dinosaurs to have been around and to have sometimes have been buried and fossilised within them. Google if you don't believe me. The person showing ignorance, cant, hypocrisy and hatred (and cowardice) is YOU, Bob. David Coppedge's article provides NO rational answers and he is either confused or is DELIBERATELY MISLEADING his readers by not referring to the age of the exposed layers. "So the answer to PhysOrg‘s question, “Did dinosaurs enjoy Grand Canyon views?” is “Definitely not”".

Also this from Coppedge. "Their reason would be that the canyon formed after the great Flood of Noah’s day. The dinosaurs had all drowned during the Flood year, the last holdouts leaving footprints in Navajo sandstone at levels thousands of feet higher than the canyon sediments. The canyon sediments preserve only marine creatures buried in the early stages of the Flood. Possibly centuries after the Flood, a dam breach from a remnant inland sea carved the canyon when the sediments were still soft, according to a leading creation model." Total nonsense. And AT VARIANCE with other 'flood geologists' who say (or used to) that the receding floodwaters formed the canyon - not some other fictional event centuries later. More YEC lies to try and address a PROBLEM - the problem of no dinosaur fossils at the Grand Canyon. Which REAL science has EXPLAINED.

Unlike these YECs:
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/gr ... nd-canyon/
"Some of these—including geologists who accept the biblical history of the global Flood—maintain the Grand Canyon was carved by a sudden release of water dammed up behind the Kaibab uplift (aka Kaibab Upwarp). Creationist geologists believe this water was trapped in the aftermath of the global Flood."
https://creation.com/grand-canyon-origin-flood
"A better explanation is that the GC was formed while the waters of Noah’s Flood receded from the American continent."

What I refer to in preceding paras is called science, Bob. But you won't touch it with a bargepole.

[a_haworthroberts]

These nonsensical claims by AiG should mean that dinosaur fossils (they having often been clumsy lumbering and unintelligent beasts who might fail to escape catastrophically rising floodwaters sooner than many mammals and humans) are found within Grand Canyon layers - if such sedimentary layers were laid down during the 'recessive' stage of the said flood. But they aren't. Which is why we have the nonsense by Coppedge in the previous post - which disagrees with the other wild claims of AiG:
https://answersingenesis.org/missing-li ... k-problem/
"Archaeopteryx and Sinosauropteryx are found in rock layers associated with the Flood. So how old are they? They are about 4,350 years old. Dinosaurs are also found in rock layers from the Flood, putting them around 4,350 years old too. Did one turn into the other during the Flood? Not at all. They were fleeing from and finally buried and fossilized in the Flood."
https://answersingenesis.org/media/audi ... bal-flood/ (in this 1 minute audio Ham claims most dinosaurs were buried during the Genesis flood)
Or you could say that the Grand Canyon WAS formed during Noah's Flood (not in a "dam breach from a remnant inland sea", the Kaibab Uplift hypothesis, many decades later). And then explain how the dinosaurs presumably resident where the canyon formed managed to avoid being buried in the layers of the canyon during the flood (if the canyon formed less than 65 million years ago as scientists believe) but instead all managed to leave their "footprints in Navajo sandstone at levels thousands of feet higher than the canyon sediments" (which some dinosaurs did - more than 65 million years ago).

[a_haworthroberts]

https://en-gb.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/
" ... This is news to all the Christians and creationists who deny secular darlings like evolution and climate change (there is no evidence, after all) who are credentialed scientists. -CBB."


LIAR

[a_haworthroberts]

https://en-gb.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/
"Haywire the stalker ignored the content during his "ego surfing" again, and is furious that he was called out on his inability to understand scientific principles that he pretends to know." (His latest bad tempered comment under where he flagged this very lengthy article of his: http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2017/10 ... m=facebook)

HYPOCRITE, FRAUD AND BIGOT. YOU DELIBERATELY IGNORE ALL THE CONTENT OF MY REMARKS IN YOUR COWARDLY ATTACK. MY REMARKS RIGHT HERE AT 0.03 AND 2.09 AM BST TODAY. (So I didn't comment on the WHOLE of your very long article - OK I will now highlight that you admit "It's a mite too easy to say that the entire secular scientific community is suppressing physical evidence that conflicts with their view".)

And you are PATHOLOGICALLY DELIBERATELY LYING AGAIN. You FALSELY claim that you called me out on scientific principles. NO. I have called YOU out on science that you either did not know or were deliberately ignoring (I suspect the former) and your response to me doing so is to DO THE LATTER and launch another childish context-free personal attack to the rabble who read your pages, and call me 'Haywire the stalker' again.

Unrepentant liars go to hell (a lake of a fire) according to your religion.

2 Timothy 3:7b (NIV)
"... never able to come to a knowledge of the truth".

No wonder you don't do debates, fascist. You cannot win a debate by ignoring EVERYTHING your opponent says. (But you CAN behave in such a devious manner online.)

I repeat. The exposed rocks at the Grand Canyon are not too young for dinosaur fossils they are too old. Yet the CREV article you uncritically referenced implies the former. That article also falsely and ridiculously implies that some 'dam breach from a remnant inland sea' (the Kaibab Uplift of around 270 million years ago?) formed the Grand Canyon less than 5,000 years ago several 'centuries' perhaps after the 'global flood'.

[a_haworthroberts]

CHartsil flagged this Sorensen post here: https://www.facebook.com/TQEPDebunked/?hc_location=ufi
http://radaractive.blogspot.co.uk/2017/ ... m=facebook

In turn, Sorensen was flagging this pile of poo (why did he bother) from Answers in Genesis:
https://answersingenesis.org/archaeolog ... newgrange/

So I'll dig out my recent email on that subject:


"Further confirmation that humanity built structures, which still exist today, before the claimed worldwide flood of Noah that is part of AiG's 'biblical worldview timeline' in a '6,000 year old universe. Thanks, Dr Faulkner.

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeolog ... cebook-aig

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/televis ... r-1.263042 (Press article from 1999; Earth's axial tilt is currently declining as part of a 41,000 year cycle.)
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science ... -1.1629602 (article from 2013)

According to the AiG article's subheading:
"An astronomer believes we can use this to recalibrate early dates to match biblical history."

Trouble is it seems he actually can do NO SUCH THING. The article explains:
"It would be exciting if we could confirm the age of the Newgrange site by comparing the alignment of the passage and roofbox to the winter solstice. Someone has already tried to do this, though his analysis is based on some unprovable assumptions.

Irish astrophysicist Tom Ray found that the winter solstice light floods the chamber four minutes after sunrise. The delay is attributed to slight changes in the tilt of the earth’s axis over the last few thousand years. Ray believes that the earth’s axis in 3150 BC would give the maximum lighting at sunrise on the winter solstice. It would even directly illuminate a spiral pattern on one of the smaller chamber walls. Thus, Ray thought he had confirmed the radiocarbon date [of 3150 BC].

At first glance, his deduction seems reasonable ..."

Those not banned by Facebook for allegedly breaching community standards have been criticising the article here:
https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis/

AiG are trying to get Christians to undermine and attack science (and history). There's no 'alternative' science in the article. Just anti-science, science denial and the sowing of doubt and uncertainty. All in the name of religious belief ie 'biblical worldview Christianity'. Because all Faulkner can do is waffle about assumptions and then conclude with:
"Could the roofbox’s lighting serve a broader purpose than to mark a spot on the wall, as Ray’s theory requires? If creationists can identify a more reasonable scientific interpretation of the best alignment of the winter solstice sunrise with Newgrange], archaeologists could use this to find the true date and better calibrate radiocarbon dates.""


But Sorensen appears to welcome the Faulkner article and echoes the arrogant lying contained within it:
"In reality, a great deal of work needs to be done, without secular assumptions, to determine a more accurate date for Newgrange." More accurate than the correct date?

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/
"How do I refute thee? Let me count the ways...
EDIT: A furious atheist shared this post and made a comment that proved me right. Again. He obviously did not read the post.
This graphic is a preview of the Featured Article for Saturday, October 21st. Anti-creationists try to "refute" us in several ways:
* Straw Man (nobody has to defend a position they don't hold, especially when words are put in our mouths)
* Misrepresentation (a form of straw man with a dishonest flair)
* Ad hominem attacks (the character and intelligence of individuals, creation science, God himself, the Bible, and so on; yer a st00pid dumb creotard for believing in that stuff and I'm smarter than you because atheism)
* Change the subject and attack (a variation on the red herring distraction), including hijacking a discussion thread
* Appeal to motive (just what it says; "you say/do this because...", but they do not have knowledge of someone's heart and mind)
These and more are discussed. Essentially, village atheists and anti-creationists on teh interwebs who go out as Darwin's Crusaders have the coherence and impact of a gorilla splashing in a wading pool. -CBB
https://giphy.com/gifs/13yTLNRFHC6Rri/html5"
(at 16.00 hours on 18 October)

https://www.facebook.com/TQEPDebunked/?hc_location=ufi
"Yes, we're so unable to refute creationism that you have to vehemently block us at every turn.
Makes sense if you don't think about it."
(posted on 19 October - apparently Sorensen's 'EDIT' is reacting to this comment)

The EDIT is full of lies and malicious accusations. He made a comment that "proved me right". No he did NOT, liar. He highlighted your cowardice over defending your position to those outside your fanbase. "He obviously did not read the post." You don't know whether he read it or not (even if he did not re-post every word of it). Though not posting every word (people know where to go to read the original) did not stop this attack from Curtis Long against TQEPD:
"I see that Gutless didn't share the whole post. Let me help.
"How do I refute thee? Let me count the ways...
EDIT: A furious atheist shared this post and made a comment that proved me right. Again. He obviously did not read the post.
This graphic is a preview of the Featured Article for Saturday, October 21st. Anti-creationists try to "refute" us in several ways:
* Straw Man (nobody has to defend a position they don't hold, especially when words are put in our mouths)
* Misrepresentation (a form of straw man with a dishonest flair)
* Ad hominem attacks (the character and intelligence of individuals, creation science, God himself, the Bible, and so on; yer a st00pid dumb creotard for believing in that stuff and I'm smarter than you because atheism)
* Change the subject and attack (a variation on the red herring distraction), including hijacking a discussion thread
* Appeal to motive (just what it says; "you say/do this because...", but they do not have knowledge of someone's heart and mind)
These and more are discussed. Essentially, village atheists and anti-creationists on teh interwebs who go out as Darwin's Crusaders have the coherence and impact of a gorilla splashing in a wading pool. -CBB""

Well Long is an admirer of a hypocritical reflex liar who is an EXPERT on deliberate misrepresentation, Ad hominem insults and avoiding the subject. TQEPD points out that Sorensen blocks people at every turn despite them allegedly refuting creationism with as much skill as a gorilla splashing in a bath - and Sorensen attacks the comment WITHOUT quoting ANY of it. Typical cheating behaviour from this fraud.

[a_haworthroberts]

A pity that Everett Coates (trained in geology and soil science) provides NO scientific explanation of how the Genesis flood created unconformities that natural processes would require millions of years to achieve. But Bob is apparently satisfied nevertheless ...
http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/con ... -represent
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2017/10 ... views.html
"What we really have is geology that is best explained by the rapidly-flowing water and catastrophic tectonics of the Genesis Flood."
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/
"Featured Post: "Unconformities Not Conforming to Secular Geological Views"
Uniformitarian geologists have difficulties dealing with surfaces between layers called unconformities. These are explained by creationary Genesis Flood models."

ALL Coates comes up with is:
"Think about the videos we saw of the devastating tsunami in Japan moving millions of tons of steel and concrete debris as it pushed the remains of cities inland from the ocean. Multiply the hydraulic force of the surging water and the tectonic force (a powerful earthquake at a crustal plate subduction zone) that caused it by a factor of hundreds of thousands onto a global scale and it’s not so hard to see how sediments could be deposited, tilted and eroded, and covered by more sediments in literally hours or days at most."

This is his bio as given in one of his books that has been advertised at Amazon.com:
"For years my struggles over the seeming disagreements between the gospels, particularly regarding Jesus birth, crucifixion and resurrection, and His Second Coming, in tandem with my attempt to reconcile Genesis 1 through 11 with my training in evolutionary geology, had been destroying my faith in the Bible and quietly leading me toward atheism. I was a lost church-goer until January of 1990 when God suddenly and dramatically showed me that His Word is true (and evolution is not!) and led me to a saving faith in His Son. One day I began thinking again about the gospel discrepancies, knowing that there must be a simple explanation. It occurred to me that since they are eyewitness accounts, possibly treating them as such and combining them as law enforcement officers do with multiple eyewitness statements might solve the problem. It did! Why the Gospel Witnesses Agree and What This Means for Us combines the gospels at the three most crucial points in the earthly life of Jesus Christ, demonstrating that the differences are not errors. Rather they are the normal result of the various viewpoints of the eyewitnesses, which disappear when the accounts are put together in a logical order."
Coates has also commented:
"... My career has spanned over 35 years as a soil scientist with USDA Soil Conservation Service, operating a private soil science consulting firm, and Wake County Department of Environmental Services where I still serve in the capacity of Soil Scientist/Environmental Engineer. Working in the field has allowed me to have some rather close associations with such creatures as rattle snakes and bobcats, not to mention other less hostile species. I have served on the NC Experimental and Innovative Committee, which advises the State of NC, Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources concerning new wastewater treatment technologies for use in residential applications. I have also served on the board of the Triangle Association for the Science of Creation and am a member of the Creation Research Society...".

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/
"Good for a laugh in some ways. Very tired and stumbled over myself, even lost my train of thought. Things got rolling, though. On one of my VftB interviews, Haywire the Stalker and his ilk were so obstreporous in comments, the owner shut off comments!"
(photo taken lest he delete his comment after reading this and calls me a 'liar')

This records what ACTUALLY happened:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=50485&hilit=gilbert#p50485 (on 2 August 2015)

I sent this message to Sorensen (before locating the details) and stand by what I said (I was in fact defending another person against Sorensen bullying - and Gilbert apparently disapproved of my actions):
"Lying fascist. Derek whatsit - months/years ago - simply behaved like YOU."

These people are pathological liars, bigots and frauds. Evil - and a disgrace to 'Christianity'.

[CHartsil]

a_haworthroberts just take consolation in the fact that we have the cowards beat back, isolating themselves and babbling on a handful of youtube channels and facebook pages only amongst their own.

It's as if they sincerely do not understand how pathetic they look to anyone being banned just for asking genuine questions.

[a_haworthroberts]

In case you don't see it promptly, I will PM you shortly re my next post - as it addresses a new Piltdown Superman post that is having ago at you for not always providing evidence that you have fully read the Sorensen articles and links that you criticise on your own Facebook page (I can't comment there at present because the fascist morons at Facebook are not allowing me to for allegedly 'violating' their community standards).

[a_haworthroberts]

Wide circulation email as just sent:

Meanwhile the pathological liar (and young earth creationist) Sorensen carries on as normal:
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2017/10 ... m=facebook
"In reality, they are attempting to protect evolutionism from rational scrutiny." Liar.
"Science thrives on information and discussion, but anti-creationists not only oppose free speech, but free thought." Liar.
"Many of these folks fancy themselves as crusaders for science, falsely calling those who disagree with evolution "liars", egos telling them that they are vitally important to their cause." Liar.
When I call Sorensen a 'liar', and I frequently do, I SHOW it. Whereas all he does is shout 'liar' and show nothing. I truthfully call Sorensen a liar.
For reasons best known to him, he links to this post of mine from 14 October; it was actually about Ken Ham not Sorensen - and it did not even include the word 'liar'. But I demonstrated precisely how Ham claims to 'love' science yet rejects huge swathes of it (almost entirely for reasons motivated by religious dogma). The existence of fossils does NOT confirm a 'recent global flood'. That is religion (apologetics) but it is NOT science.
"Most are not taken seriously, and are only making a small splash in a puddle, having no impact on the ocean of truth that biblical creationists present." That must be why Sorensen hates people like me so much. And why he routinely CENSORS us whilst wailing hypocritically that his opponents are people who 'oppose' free speech and free thought.
"One of the most common is the stunningly fallacious claim that, because we oppose evolution or anthropogenic climate change, we are "science deniers"". It's not 'fallacious'. It's true.
The remainder of Sorensen's lengthy weekend rant appears to be a complaint not against me but largely against the author of the Facebook page 'The Question Evolution Project Debunked' - though of course he fails to give an actual example of the 'incoherent obloquies' he claims to have been on the receiving end of (he enjoys it though as otherwise he surely would not make such provocative and inflammatory postings in the first place).

True to form, Sorensen closes his sermon with more lying:
"...many anti-creationists are uninformed about what we teach and believe. But their ignorance does not stop them from claiming that they are "debunking" creationists. To revisit my earlier analogy with water, what they are doing more closely resembles a gorilla splashing in a wading pool. With a bit of education and perseverance, we do not need to accept bullying and intimidation from anti-creationists. Oh, and the title, "How Biblical Creationists Are Refuted" — they're not".
Except here and here (to give just two examples which the liar Sorensen has seen but is pretending 'don't exist' because in his bigoted 'worldview' presumably biblical creationists are 'unrefutable'):
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=51686&hilit=gorilla#p51686 (19 October)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=51681&hilit=timothy#p51681 (22.18 on 14 October)

[CHartsil]

Coward Boy Bob remains free to come to TQEP Debunked and defend any and all material of his.