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

Lying stupid scum

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:39 am
"He's blowing a fuse and calling you liar but never proves any of them, just says they are. Then he ignores your challenges and proof. What a tool. Speaking of that, Remo says he needs you for his personal erotic fantasies."
(Guess which 'Christian'? Calm down dear - your fascist bully candidate is doing well. Hope you enjoy having him as your President. Rather you than me.)

PS I guess these people know this character: ... tment.html
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Compulsive liars and hypocrites

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:01 am

I will probably ignore any further crap of this kind from these fascists.

Except for taking photos of it which could be used in evidence should the need arise (again).

I will however continue to highlight any lies about science etc that might appear online from Sorensen. If he is too wimpy to cope with criticisms and corrections, he should either stop his lying or get off the internet.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Sorensen is insane

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:39 pm
"Stalker jerkazoid thinks I'm with Denver PD. Nope. Read the badge."

Excuse me?

Where did I suggest that SORENSEN is suddenly in Denver and not New York City? :roll:

PS at 3.22 am GMT. He's now quietly removed the stupidity.

PPS on 16 November - I confused New York City with New York State (but NOT with Colorado):
"Despite what a certain lying atheopath stalker says, I do not live in New York City. A couple hours north...".
And I am NOT a 'lying atheopath' you deranged evil ****. If I get something wrong I correct myself. A 'lying atheopath' would be unlikely to do that.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

The hatred from the internet bigot

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:01 am

He's either added to his facebook post dated 8 November or else there are comments there that I did not fully notice at the time (the post was edited but I'm not certain exactly when):
""NO, liar Bob. In my case you did NOT - ever - 'refute' my logic and accusations. You just wrote that you 'did'. You provided NO evidence that SHOWED that you did. None."
Haywire's lying again. He knows these exist, and denies that what passes for logic on his planet has been refuted, as well as his admission to stalking. (This is not my entire collection, by the way.) ... kFxVNjxl...
This should also prove interesting: ... lout-and...
"Any more of this crap and I WILL report BOTH of them to the local police. I am not joking. I have photos of these new comments."
Want some cheese to go with that whine? He posts on a public forum, and so do I. Hypocrite. This country has not instituted the Thought Police — yet. I hope that any alleged police will do their jobs and learn that Haywire has been stalking me for *years*, libeling and attacking me, and other biblical creationists, in various Weblogs around the Web, and he is the reason some sites have either stopped accepting comments or enabled moderation because he's more interested in personal attacks than staying on topic. He even railed about me on Amazon, for crying out loud! ... olerance...
Haywire has no influence, nor credibility, even with atheists. Sensible people ignore him, many of the often 50+ recipients of his spam e-mails have resorted to blocking him.
Again, this is what blind hatred of both God and people can do, and it adds to not only mental illness, but demonic influence. Dealing with atheopaths is in my job description, but sensible people should feel free to block those who want to use the Internet to harass them.
By the way, he's complained that I don't link to that Forum of Futility because I'm "afraid" that people will learn the "truth" about me (appeal to motive fallacy), but he has also complained when I do link to it. viewtopic.php?f=18... "

"He posts on a public forum, and so do I. Hypocrite." No. The liar (and hypocrite) is Sorensen. I post where Sorensen CAN reply. He posts where I CANNOT reply. Because he is a coward as well as liar. And I have NEVER threatened to 'visit' him and get him arrested by the police and/or video-ed or audio-ed. NEVER. I have NO wish to meet you Mr Sorensen (I don't want another Christmas card either).

"I hope that any alleged police will do their jobs and learn that Haywire has been stalking me for *years*, libeling and attacking me ..". Yes - I informed the visiting police lady, when she visited on 29 October and viewed emails on my computer screen, that as well as arguing online with Curtis Long - who then sent threatening-looking messages to me - the author of the blog site where I encountered him ie Sorensen had been frequently criticised online by myself for a period of years. It's not a crime so of course I told her - as relevant background. (The fool Bob is still not believing me about the police visit. Unless he is more intelligent than I thought and is in fact believing me, but pretending otherwise in order to falsely portray me as a 'lying atheopath'.)

And he is LYING that I have 'no influence' - how can he possibly know since he REFUSES to read my wide circulation emails about claims by him and other YECs. He's a reality denier. Several people regularly reply to such emails (they don't always agree with everything I write but I would have thought there would be MORE replies if people violently disagreed - unless of course they are AFRAID of what I write so silently block me).

Sorensen is so thin-skinned because he peddles lies that are easily debunked. But he's now admitted that my 'harassment' (refuting his claims on THIS open forum) is legit because "dealing with atheopaths is in my job description".

Further photos taken. Should I need to involve the police again - I hope not - I WILL show them THIS comment from Sorensen:
"When you go visit, take pictures. And get some audio. I bet he whines through his nose." If Long has something to say to me, he should say it NOW via email or facebook. Not utter implied threats (which Sorensen appears to approve of). Their behaviour recently has been borderline criminal. Mine has not. Unless refuting creationism is now a crime - or to be made one if Trump does not face criminal charges and does become President in January.

I also refer Sorensen to News and Links. Post about Trump is relevant because Trump denies climate change and Pence denies evolution.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YEC Bob Sorensen - compulsive liar exposed

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:56 pm

Pl also see 'Great' at News and Links.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Compulsive liar lies again

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:07 am ... tians.html
"For example, there is a narcissistic atheopath who used profanity in comments on my posts, and said he would apologize if I admitted he was right on other things. Aside from being blatantly irrational, he was also blackmailing me and telling me to lie that he was right so he would apologize for his bad behavior!)"

LIAR. I was justified in using the language I used because you are evil and a pathological liar. But I offered to apologise if you would - just ONCE - admit that I tell the truth. But of course you failed. Because you are evil and a pathological liar. So yes - I stand by what I wrote. Your latest hateful lying changes NOTHING. Which includes your final destination.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YEC Bob Sorensen - compulsive liar exposes himself

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:04 am

More proof that this boorish bigot will NEVER have an honest argument with ANYONE who does not agree with his opinions as hammered home on his blogs. Instead he resorts to mudslinging and banning the person so that the attempted debate is ended prematurely (and guess who 'won' the argument):
"It can be both irritating and amusing when people insist that we're wrong, but can't be bothered to read the material. It often proves them wrong, and they humiliate themselves as well as waste our time.
Here is an excellent example that happened on the Google Plus version of TQEP. There, like here, comments normally go downward. I repositioned the comments for readability. -CBB" See the graphic that then follows. Bob has crawled all over the comments in red ink!! So there.

A pity that his comments that the person hadn't read the article, and that they were being 'false' and 'irrational', and that they were going off onto irrelevancies (because he dared mention some health/medicine topics) are ALL evasive nonsense and completely untrue. But this is how this boorish bigot operates. Every time. It saves him from ever addressing awkward questions (I thought YECs had access to all the answers?). Or from ever discussing specifics and instead of the GENERALITIES found in most of his propaganda. He is a utter disgrace.

This person is evil TO CHRISTIANITY as well as to truth and reason.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Deep Time does not need 'rescuing'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:24 am ... -view.html
'Methane Won't Rescue Long-Age View' (flagging a recent ICR article, one which I have already looked at)

Meanwhile I sent this email several weeks ago (including to Sorensen but he is afraid to read my messages and informs me that I am blocked):
"'YECs refusing to join the dots.'
The young earth creationists talk about the as yet unsolved Faint Young Sun Paradox. (Various hypotheses have been put forward to solve the conundrum, including 1. more greenhouse gases especially methane billions of years ago (but a new paper highlighted by the ICR appears to show that sulphates would have been problematic for the hypothesis), or 2. more radiogenic heating or 3. greater tidal heating due to a closer moon or 4. reduced albedo with more of the Earth's surface being ocean and with less, reflective, global cloud cover*: - footnote 22 links to a paper proposing a reduced albedo solution*)
Which realities ('dots') do the YECs apparently recognise?
- the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion with hydrogen being converted into helium;
- this process would lead to slow shrinkage or contraction of the Sun's core since helium is denser than hydrogen; a higher than now hydrogen/helium ratio would have meant a slower nuclear fusion rate than is the case now on a Type G star during its Main Sequence (YECs appear to accept the concept of Main Sequence as is shown on a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram);
- so IF the solar system was billions of years old the early Sun would have been fainter;
- they also appear to accept (it's somewhat 'biblical') that at the time in question (if such time really happened which they refuse to accept) there was liquid water (not vast tracks of ice or snow) on or just below the planet's surface; higher Oxygen 18/Oxygen 16 ratios found within zircons within some particularly ancient rocks apparently point to contact with liquid water.
So there is a Faint Young Sun Paradox (less active Sun yet also liquid water not a frozen planet). Except that there was 'no' Faint Young Sun after all - because Earth and the universe are just 6,000 years old. Pesky scientific problem solved by YECs.
Thus the YEC reaction is not to join the dots but rather to rub some of them out.
The Sun was never 'faint' but rather (according to a 2004 Jonathan Sarfati article) has always been 'steady'. .
Well I suppose there's no hint of a faint sun, if only for a short time (such as the UN-biblical YEC post-flood 'ice age'), found within the Bible.
I suspect that if the faint sun was proven to THEIR satisfaction (even if the above-mentioned paradox remained) the YEC apologists might start suggesting this event happening 'during Noah's Flood' or 'during the ice age'.

* CMI attempted, but failed miserably, to debunk the albedo hypothesis (well in fact debunk lower albedo PLUS more methane):
CMI referenced that paper here:
The abstract only referred to 'minimal anti-greenhouse cooling' yet Oard claimed that the likely resulting organic atmospheric haze could not - as was proposed in that Science paper (apparently it proposed 'clumped aggregates') could not have caused a lower planetary albedo with respect to visible wavelengths of light. Why could it not. Well for NO actual reason offered by Oard. Just the words contained within his final propagandist subsection entitled 'The Paradox is not Solved'. Where he changes tack from the immediately preceding comments and instead complains about climate models and quotes two experts - a senior editor at Nature and a geoscientist - who suggested that challenges remain for each warming hypothesis and that the paradox is not yet solved."
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YECs in la la land re animal and human 'migration'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:31 am

Message as just sent:

"Despite what 'biblical creationists' believe, or say they are seeking to believe in order to be considered orthodox Christians, land-based animals and indeed humans have never 'recently' migrated en masse from a fixed point in Turkey to every other (separate) continent around the world, whilst significantly vastly multiplying in number along the way (despite the higher latitude ravages of an alleged - completely unbiblical - 'post-flood ice age'). Never. Rather most of the time (flightless) species evolve where they are already present with just limited seasonal migration within continents or possibly, now and again, transfer between continents via either log rafts or across temporary 'land bridges' during real ice age glaciations. And humanity was already all over the world 5,000 years ago (and was never virtually wiped out, save eight people, during a vast and allegedly worldwide flood inundation). So YEC claims, that 'evolutionists' ie real mainstream scientists (whether atheist or theist) and with no axe to grind cannot account for how all this happened, or that YECs can explain it all better than anyone else, are entirely BOGUS.

But YECs have some hogwash on the subject of alleged world-wide level mammal migration between continents/across oceans and seas: ... -migration
"Creationists, on the other hand, have a very potent mechanism to explain biogeography by the huge log and vegetation rafts that would be left over from the Genesis Flood and would last for decades floating on the oceans."

Yes, once a super-continent broke up and this led to genetically similar species sometimes ending up on what are today totally separate continents or islands by a process of vicariance (augmented it appears at times by oceanic dispersal or perhaps temporary land bridges being crossed during glacial periods). No, it did not happen during a fictional worldwide flood in which pairs of land-based animals (and birds) were saved - along with eight humans - who then disembarked in Turkey in order to swiftly re-colonise the planet (after the continents had, they say, separated ie re-colonisation of land separated from Turkey and the rest of Europe and Asia by oceans had to have been via the oceanic dispersal mechanism or by perhaps via a Bering land bridge during the 'post-flood ice age').

Incidentally, in his 2010 book 'refuting' Dawkins Jonathan Sarfati had to 'account for' there being no eutherian mammals in Australia and mostly just marsupial ones (like kangaroos) by suggesting that either these were deliberately taken there by humans or else they travelled to loads of other places too but went extinct (leaving no fossil evidence) everywhere else (chapter 10, pages 168-169).

In this 2014 CMI article Oard makes the totally unsubstantiated claim:
"Many of the unique animals in Australia could have passed across other land bridges or island hopped." All the way from Turkey?

And then: "It is not likely that the unique animals of Madagascar and the flightless birds found on Pacific Ocean islands or the unique South American animals spread by land bridges. This also leaves creationists with rafting on logs or vegetation mats to explain the presence of these animals."

But: "However, creationists are in a far better position to explain these animals as there was much more vegetation available for rafting immediately after the global Flood." So there.

Two problems. Firstly the vicariance hypothesis still holds firm even though in some instances it is difficult to defend because of molecular comparisons that suggest related species on separate landmasses are too dissimilar to have previously been 'neighbours' on one super-continent. Secondly YECs cannot really use the hypothesis - because they say the continents broke apart before the floodwaters disappeared (thus they must hypothesise oceanic massive log and vegetation mats - whilst saying there would be way 'too few' of these based on 'evolutionary' history).

"Many details of biogeography remain to be elucidated but we have a general model with great potential to explain the dispersal patterns we observe today."

Except that in many cases we are not looking at a 'dispersal' pattern at all! But at certain species and indeed much larger taxonomic groups being indigenous to or indeed endemic to one or more continents or islands ie they may well have never existed on all or most of the remaining continents (including in the vicinity of the mountains of Ararat).

But 'Cowboy' Bob Sorensen is enthused: ... fting.html
"Getting various life forms to their locations around the world (biogeography) is a problem for evolutionists and uniformitarian scientists, who also wonder how they moved around."
Not really. And his claim - see the previous Piltdown Superman article that is linked to - that land bridges are 'not' a good explanation (because early humans used boats, silly) makes the Oard claim about Australia, mentioned above, look even weaker than before - if you take Sorensen more seriously than Oard that is. And the rest of the earlier Sorensen article links to an ICR article arguing the total OPPOSITE of what Oard argues in his 2014 CMI article - it proposed land bridges (caused by that unbiblical 'ice age') rather than log or vegetation rafts (caused by the non-existent but apparently biblical worldwide flood). Please see: ... ation.html"
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Lying fanatics

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:02 am

Email as just sent:

"I have just telephoned the local police and reported the intimidatory Facebook comment from 'law enforcer' (and hate-monger) Curtis Long earlier today 22 November on Bob Sorensen's Facebook page. Along with Sorensen's Facebook comment dated 8 November. I have also mentioned a separate Facebook comment by Sorensen on 11 November - where he appeared to mock my promise to contact the local police again should their behaviour make that necessary. I have told the officer just now exactly what the latest comment by Long says. Please see the four photos, which due to technical issues will be attached across two separate further emails (the photos are shown in reverse chronological order and there are two photos taken on 22 November). The Facebook link is also shown below. After I quoted the previous call reference to the police officer a few minutes ago - 32708 28 October (a female police officer visited me at home on 29 October and viewed two emails that Long had sent) - the police tonight gave me this further reference number - 9592 22 November. (see comments posted under 'More Signs of a Young Solar System')

The new comments tonight read:
"I see Hitler Robbers is back in action. By the way, going to London next week, I'll see some old friends at Scotland Yard, and make other business and social calls." (Long)

"You'd think he'd tire of humiliating himself and proving me right, but there are methane bubbles in his think tank. -CBB" (Sorensen)

The background as you will have gathered is that around 24 hours ago I rubbished some blog comments by Sorensen here (and also by email):

Instead of responding like rational human beings these right wing extremist US Christians (thankfully not typical of Christianity in general) become 'unhinged' and intimidatory.

I see this as confirmation that my criticisms of Sorensen's online claims have hit the target again. And that he and some of his followers are unable to rationally defend his claims. So resort to attempted intimidation in an effort to deter me from further criticism. Honest people would not behave thus. Unrepentant liars who wish to deceive other people would, however."
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC Bob Sorensen - compulsive liar exposed

Postby ProfessorTertius » Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:23 pm

I find it interesting that Cowbob Boy---yes, I can play the silly name game as well---complains that people don't take up his challenges, even while he makes sure that his webpages don't allow any comments.

It just goes to show that Cowbob Boy is well aware that he can't handle any sort of questioning or critique. As is common on "flood geology" and "creation science" and the hilarious "floating vegetation mats" pseudo-science websites, he's a coward. Censorship is the argument of last resort.

The Bob Boy will go apoplectic about these posts but he won't dare let down his gates and allow actual questioning and dialogue which would expose his nonsense. He won't ever visit the Biologos forum and discuss the science with the PhD scientists and theologians there who actually get published, in real journals, not silly propaganda magazines pretending to be peer-reviewed journals. No, the Young Earth Creationist propagandists MUST segregate themselves or they can't survive.

Delicate snowflakes can only survive in freezers. There they can safely hide in the dark and mumble to themselves. Just as the Bible says, darkness can't handle the light of day, where their words and deeds are evident.
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Compulsive liars

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:35 pm

I can't disagree. As for Long, what has my email of two days ago - reproduced above at 4.31 am GMT on 22 November (it's not only the Trump Tweeter who never sleeps who keeps unsociably late/early hours) - what has it even got to do with him? The message wasn't about anything he said and the email wasn't even copied to him.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YECs' mendacious anti-scientific nonsense

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:08 pm
But a YEC has fictitiously claimed that this dinosaur was "transported by floodwaters [the great Flood ie the flood described early in Genesis] into the sea, many miles from shore". It was found 2.3 KILOMETRES (1.4 MILES) below the floor of the North Sea by an offshore oil drilling platform, which suggests GREAT age not a critter around less than 5,000 years ago, and the location - in the Snorre oilfield of the North Sea - is around 100 miles west of Norway I think.

Total lies.

The BBC report explains:
"This dinosaur is the most common type found in Europe. At the time it lived, there was a desert between Norway and Greenland crossed by meandering rivers." Whereas the YEC posts garbage: "They forget that only the great Flood can explain the turbulence necessary to transport marine animals hundreds of miles onto the continents and sweep terrestrial organisms into the deep ocean". Which NEVER happened. (Except maybe via an occasional unbiblical tsunami.) Even if it happened, how could Noah's Flood transport dinosaur bones (or a whole dinosaur) a hundred or more miles horizontally?

But guess WHO likes this article: ... dence.html
He's posted yet more propaganda in response:
"When presented with evidence that does not conform to long-age and evolutionary expectations, secularists employ rescuing devices. Sure, we all have rescuing devices, but to for scientists to reject investigation and simply make excuses is, well, inexcusable.
After all, scientists who are supposed to be interested in evidence. Instead, many will make up stories, ignore the evidence, call biblical creationists "liars", and other silliness."

Hypocrite and liar Bob will continue to ignore the sum of the evidence in cases like this one - whilst simultaneously accusing scientists of 'ignoring' evidence and making up 'stories'.

What will Sorensen's response be? A facebook post calling me 'Hitler'? Or just silence?

I am just exercising the right of free speech. On a forum Sorensen could join - if he had the guts.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YEC Bob Sorensen's second career of spreading lies

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:06 am

More fussing about bones from the YEC community:
""The curious case of the ‘unfossilized’ bones"
Remember, evos, you can't give creationists *anything* that they can work with. Even if we have to lie, and call you liars as well. Got that, fellow Darwinoids?
"A little over a year ago, I wrote an article detailing a recent article by Dr Hirotsugu Mori and his team, formerly a researcher at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. My article sought to draw attention to a small (but very consequential) comment made by Dr Mori as part of his published journal article, where he referred to certain duckbill dinosaur bones as 'typically uncrushed and unpermineralized'.""

The new CMI article by Price states:
"After my article was posted to our website, it seemed to generate a fair amount of attention from readers at the time. But, to my surprise, one such reader contacted me by email just recently (a year later) to inform me that after reading my article, he had submitted a question to a secular science website to ask them to comment on the status of those bones. The organization had gotten back to him with an answer: they said they had contacted the author of one of the papers involved (a paper that Dr Mori had cited in his research), Dr Anthony Fiorillo, who said that the bones are permineralized.3"
Footnote 3 as given by CMI simply is
"Unpermineralised dinosaur bones,, 29 October 2015."

I found the page in question and it says somewhat more than "the bones are permineralised" (comments are by Professor David Wynick of Bristol University): ... p?id=13757
"thanks for your post and having read the paper that you referenced (A new Arctic hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (lower Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska by Mori, H., Druckenmiller, P.S., and Erickson, G.M. in Acta Palaeontologica Polonica) I too was very puzzled!
I therefore contacted Professor Tony Fiorillo who is the world expert in this field (and whose many papers are cited in the Mori ppaer) who responded as follows (I have highlighted the text in bold for emphasis):
The Mori et al. paper states that the bones are "typically uncrushed and unpermineralized" and cite two papers; Gangloff and Fiorillo (2010) and Fiorillo et al. (2010). While the preservation of dinosaur bones at the Liscomb Bonebed is exquisite, the bones are indeed permineralized. In Gangloff and Fiorillo (pg. 300), we discuss the common to abundant occurrence of minerals such as pyrite, calcite and chalcedony (microcrystalline quartz) within the dinosaur bones collected. All of these minerals are commonly introduced during the permineralization process. Further in Gangloff and Fiorillo (2010) there is a great deal of discussion in the text and in the figures about the fractured nature of many bones due to the freeze-thaw process present along boundaries of permafrost.
In Fiorillo et al. (2010) we did not focus on any of the mineralogical aspects of bone preservation so I am puzzled as to why this paper is used in this part of the Mori et al. paper.
I hope this helps clarify the question raised on your website. The bones from the Liscomb Bonebed are remarkable but they are indeed fossilized and they are indeed permineralized."

Price also lies to a supporter in discussion under the article:
"Yes, there is ample evidence that dinosaurs did survive the Flood, just as the Bible says (all the kinds of land animals would have been represented on the Ark)." Dinosaur fossils do not appear above the K-T or K-Pg Boundary and you know that, fantasist (mammal fossils do). The former clearly became extinct around 66 million years ago. Thus there were no live dinosaurs 4,500 years ago. Full stop. The later species all experienced death by asteroid it would appear.
Incidentally AiG have lied that "There seems to be too much iridium dispersed over the earth to be explained by just an asteroid": ... saurs-die/
This BBC News report however makes clear that "Iridium is apparent in the geological layers around the globe that mark the dinosaur-killing event at the end of the Cretaceous Period, but to find it in the actual crater would be an exciting observation".

"... When God says, essentially, "Have it your way" and gives people over, their reasoning gets worse (as we have seen), they become more antagonistic (as we have seen) and more blasphemous (as can be seen on his frantic rants)...".
Problem is there's nothing wrong with my reasoning. Otherwise Bob would have shown it sometime during the last five years. Including nothing on the frequent occasions where I perform the easy task of demonstrating that Sorensen is complete liar. You don't have to be a 'reprobate' to see that. In fact you could never even have been a sincere Christian.

Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

YEC Bob Sorensen and some of his followers - deluded, lying

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:54 am

Here is a new paper about the 'Lucy' fossil (falsely depicted as a knuckle-walking gorilla at the 'Creation Museum'): ... 095#sec008
"While there is broad agreement that early hominins practiced some form of terrestrial bipedality, there is also evidence that arboreal behavior remained a part of the locomotor repertoire in some taxa, and that bipedal locomotion may not have been identical to that of modern humans. It has been difficult to evaluate such evidence, however, because of the possibility that early hominins retained primitive traits (such as relatively long upper limbs) of little contemporaneous adaptive significance. Here we examine bone structural properties of the femur and humerus in the Australopithecus afarensis A.L. 288–1 ("Lucy", 3.2 Myr) that are known to be developmentally plastic, and compare them with other early hominins, modern humans, and modern chimpanzees. Cross-sectional images were obtained from micro-CT scans of the original specimens and used to derive section properties of the diaphyses, as well as superior and inferior cortical thicknesses of the femoral neck. A.L. 288–1 shows femoral/humeral diaphyseal strength proportions that are intermediate between those of modern humans and chimpanzees, indicating more mechanical loading of the forelimb than in modern humans, and by implication, a significant arboreal locomotor component. Several features of the proximal femur in A.L. 288–1 and other australopiths, including relative femoral head size, distribution of cortical bone in the femoral neck, and cross-sectional shape of the proximal shaft, support the inference of a bipedal gait pattern that differed slightly from that of modern humans, involving more lateral deviation of the body center of mass over the support limb, which would have entailed increased cost of terrestrial locomotion. There is also evidence consistent with increased muscular strength among australopiths in both the forelimb and hind limb, possibly reflecting metabolic trade-offs between muscle and brain development during hominin evolution. Together these findings imply significant differences in both locomotor behavior and ecology between australopiths and later Homo."
"Although bipedal when on the ground, the limb bone structural proportions of A.L. 288–1 provide evidence for substantially more arboreal, i.e., climbing behavior than either modern humans or Homo erectus. The frequency and magnitude of force required to stimulate bone modeling and remodeling of this kind [27] implies that this behavior was adaptively significant and not a trivial component of the locomotor repertoire [4, 89]. Possible reasons for using the trees more often include foraging for food and escape from predators. Furthermore, there is evidence that terrestrial bipedal gait in A.L. 288–1 may have differed in subtle but important ways from that of later Homo, decreasing locomotor efficiency when on the ground and limiting terrestrial mobility. Overall muscular strength relative to body size was likely greater than in Homo, perhaps reflecting less reliance on technology for food procurement/processing and defense. Where possible to evaluate, the same morphological attributes are present in other australopith specimens as well as H. habilis sensu stricto, i.e., OH 62 [13]. Overall these observations imply fundamental differences in ecology and behavior between australopiths and Homo erectus. It is likely that a number of different forms of terrestrial bipedality were practiced by early hominins, and that arboreal behavior remained an important part of the locomotor repertoire in particular taxa for millions of years."

All of which suggests the creature was a 'transitional form'.

And here is some misleading and indeed mendacious propaganda from a ardent young earth creationist who enjoys confusing people, especially people with closed minds: ... -fall.html
"First, an article. Further studies show that this extinct ape was swinging from the trees, but they still cling to their story and say that maybe perhaps somehow she spent part of the time on the ground. Pretty desperate to promote lack of evidence as science in order to deny the fact that we were created, and not the product of random chance evolution, isn't it?" (As if this was the only peer-reviewed science paper published on the Lucy fossil or any other Australopithecus afarensis fossil.)
And there's lots of desperation and deceitfulness posted in the discussion of 'Lucy' here too by YEC 'know-it-alls':

Will any response to this post be forthcoming - other than more name-calling or declarations that I am displaying 'very bad reasoning' (ie a non-response but an expression of anger nevertheless that once again I am calling out a YEC for presenting a skewed picture and attacking scientists who know more than they do because they have actually examined the fossils in question)?
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests