Recursive Debunking

A couple of weeks ago Ashley Haworth-Roberts pointed me to a post on young Earth creationist Bob Sorensen‘s blog, Stormbringer’s Thunder, called “Debunking the ICR debunker.” Apparently, this title refers to me – ‘the’ and all. Sorensen’s post is primarily a link to a much longer essay at what is now Answers for Hope, the blog of Jason Petersen, called Online Atheists and You.

But before he gets to that link Sorensen has a few things to say himself. He claims that “Internet atheists” and evolutionists “often seek to shut down the rights of creationists and Christians to even express our points of view.” More specifically, he describes me as “an arrogant kid who seems to think that he is able to discredit and debunk the science presented by ICR scientists.” This is coming from a blog with an image in the sidebar stating “Parental advisory: I am right.” Sorensen is apparently quite fond of his image-based attempts at humour: the picture above right [Edit: Removed, see here to view] is from his post, and is supposed to represent the name of this blog, “Eye on the ICR.” In addition the ‘eye’ seems to be an envious eye, though I’m not sure what I am supposed to be envious of.

Enough with Sorensen’s babblings, though – we’re interested in Petersen’s original post. He begins by saying:

It is no secret that online Christian apologists are greatly outnumbered by atheists on the internet who want to  try to debunk arguments for Christianity or young earth creationism. In fact, websites like answersingenesis and have websites that are filled with atheists that watch for articles and then almost immediately respond to every single article that is brought out.

While this may be a fairly accurate description of what I do, so far as I am aware there aren’t actually hoards of other blogs with the same purpose. To my eye, then, Petersen has inadvertently exaggerated his complaint. There may be no shortage of internet atheists, but there might be of this kind.

Regardless, he goes on to add:

Most of the responses put out by atheists to these Christians websites(I only gave two examples) are absolutely horrendous. By which I mean void of any meaningful substance. They tend to be riddled with logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks.

One thing you have to remember though is that many of these people who are writing these refutations are merely laymen. Many times they will cite a scientific study but then by hopefully sheer ignorance they will get the implication of the story incorrect. Sometimes they will even demonstrate that they don’t understand what the article is really saying.

It occurs to me that “logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks” is redundant, and more importantly that the above quote is a subtle example of poisoning the well. In a situation like this you could go back and forth forever accusing the other person of this or that fallicious argument, which is why I don’t like doing it.

I am unaware of what Petersen’s own qualifications to call other people “laymen” are. His about page claims:

I am fairly well versed in science but my main focus is Philosophy and Biblical Theology. I consider myself a freelance philosopher. I have done extensive study of scripture, philosophical and theological works.

What ‘well versed’ means to Petersen is not elaborated upon.

So where do I come in? He says:

I’ll give an example, is an atheist website that camps and responds to a lot of the articles that it brings out.

“” is not the URL of this blog, but of course you already knew that. Petersen does seem to be quite bad at linking to things – his precise target is the short Lawrence Krauss portion of my then-recent post 2012 in Review: Astronomy (you will want to re-read that post for context), but that isn’t actually mentioned. He quotes from both my post and the press release that I quoted. The issue at had is whether Krauss is “redefing reality” in arguing that something can come from nothing: I claimed that “Krauss is arguing that our definition of ‘nothing’ does not reflect reality,” while Petersen says:

You see, physicists [ED: There seems to be something missing here] particularly the physicists that are atheists are trying to get out of the “from nothing, nothing comes” conundrum by redefining the word nothing to mean physical fields, quantum vacuums, etc. But if you have those, you do have something. This is the reality that Brian Thomas is referring to. The author here is trying to dispute semantics. The reason being is that he has absolutely nothing of substance to say about the alleged redefining of nothing that Lawrence Krauss is bringing to the table.

It’s true that I didn’t say much of substance, but as this is indeed a semantic game that should really be a given. Perhaps I should instead have said that Krauss is arguing that nothing, as Petersen wishes to define it, either can’t exist or would be unstable. But I haven’t read the book, so I’m not the expert that Petersen thinks he is.

He goes on in this vein for a while, before saying:

I didn’t respond to the entire article because I simply don’t have time to, but as you can see, I easily dispatched the arguments(or lack thereof) that I did address on his posts.

Petersen’s use of pluralisation here is puzzling, because so far as I can tell the Krauss point was the only part he chose to respond to. By the way, a disclaimer like this could actually be a fairly effective counter to the Gish gallop. There are two things that should be done differently, however: the “I can’t go through all of this” disclaimer needs to come before you try to, and more importantly the argument that you chose to address needs to actually be representative of all the others. The Krauss thing was more of a philosophical aside, and so fails on the second point.

The post goes on to talk again about those atheists swarming “anything apologetics related [that] comes up online,” and beyond that decides to post some videos of debates, before concluding:

It’s important to note regarding these atheist websites, a “response” from an atheist website to a Christian or creationist article does not automatically amount to a valid rebuttal. If you watch the videos above you will see that atheists are not capable of holding up to scrutiny when their views are challenged, particularly in person(because they don’t have access to google to try and look up every argument/question/answer!)

I will admit that I can’t do much in the way of a “valid rebuttal” here myself – mostly because there isn’t much in the way of science to talk about (which is what I tend to concentrate on), and also because the whole post is really hard to read. I hope I at least gave you the gist of it, though.

Update: I removed the image, largely because DMCA counter-claims look like more trouble than they’re worth. I also forgot to link you to here for somebody else dealing with Petersen.

Update #2: Petersen has responded.

84 thoughts on “Recursive Debunking

  1. Well done! Since it is the logical content of the texts of blogs upon which they are (or SHOULD be) judged for merit (or lack thereof), you have more than sufficiently debunked Sorensen’s debunking of your debunking of those ICR screeds that you have thus far addressed on your delightful blog. Keep up the fine work!

  2. A more recent example of a Sorensen-Petersen ‘collaboration’:

    I submitted a comment to Jason underneath his piece, but he did not approve it for publication (presumably because it didn’t contain the kind of logical fallacies and Ad hominem attacks that us ‘atheists’ ie opponents of YEC-ism are supposed to come out with all the time). This was my attempted comment:
    You and Mr Sorensen are libelling me (and other people known to me).
    And why won’t Sorensen link to THIS website, so that his fans can see the FULL story?

    You will note that Sorensen and Petersen lump together rude atheists with other critics such as myself who merely try to point out the scientific and logical failures of YEC teachings. Stereo-typing people seems to be what THESE YECs at least are very keen indeed on.

  3. It’s not only atheists who question and debunk creationists’ pseudo science. One Christian site is Questioning Answers in Genesis which debunks AiG’s geogical fallacies.

    • Does that mean you intend to remove your own use of the ICR logo, or does fair use only apply to you? Can I take it that your most recent Stormbringer post refers to me?

    • NO, if you bothered to pay attention…I’ll write slowly, since you obviously can’t read fast. THE CAT EYE IS MY PROPERTY AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO USE IT. Can you figure that out, or do you need your mother to read it to you? Perhaps when you get the takedown notice for copyright infringement from WordPress, you’ll wake up, Skippy. This is atheist “morality” and “intellect” in action. Thieves, liars, libelers. NOW do you understand, thief?

    • Examples of lying and libelling by Piltdown Superman (Bob Sorensen or possibly his administrators) are available HERE:

      Bob clearly does not want the people who like his blogs and Facebook page to find the BCSE Community Forum – when he posted images of particular comments from it he deliberately obscured the name of the forum.

      And on his blogs he constantly complains about ‘trolls’ even though not everybody who challenges his scientific claims meets such a negative description.

    • I’ve removed it – for now, at least. But I think you need to look in the mirror a little more often – you’re still using the ICR’s logo without their permission, aren’t you? And what’s this nonsense about libel?

    • Although he did not name anybody specifically on that occasion, on 29 January the following appeared on Bob’s ‘The Question Evolution Project’ Facebook page:

      “ATTN trolling atheists:
      When you’re banned, it isn’t because we are shaking in fear over your massive intellect. (Yes, my eyes are rolling.)
      Far from it.
      When you’re banned, it’s because you violated the rules and paraded around this page acting like a jerk. That isn’t tolerated. There’s tons of atheist pages that have the entertainment you’re looking for. Go there.
      But, of course, if you prefer to childish slander and ridiculous notions that we’re afraid of you…..well, let’s all hope that helps you sleep at night.
      If you don’t like page rules here, go to another page that has limitless sources on how to indulge in defamation and bullying in the war against Christianity.
      Or just create your own.”

    • How many times does it have to be explained to you? Using the ICR logo falls under “fair use”, although I link to their articles frequently and I’m a financial supporter. Using my images without my permission falls under THEFT. You’re “Good without God”, ain’tcha, Poindexter?

    • See, this is the problem – while the use of the ICR logo probably is fair use, so would be my use of the entire image. By insisting otherwise you appear hypocritical.

      I chose to remove the image – before any notification came through – on the grounds that filing a DMCA counterclaim would take more time than it would be worth. It would also probably have resulted in this post being taken down for the duration, which would have meant you would have been unable to make a (public) fool of yourself here as you are doing. I realised at the time that I ran the risk that you would see it as some kind of victory, but there’s a downside to every action.

      Now, what were you saying about libel? Again, you need to look in the mirror more often.

    • “Screenshots are public. Big difference”

      And the image on your blog isn’t? Peter, take a screenshot of the image, use that, then Bob can’t complain – according to Bob>

      “How’s your cult of hate and libel going?”

      How’s your projection and transference going?

    • Atheist morality consists of pointing out your hypocrisy? Well, I’d say that makes us look good then. Christian morality, on the other hand, is well demonstrated by your anger and refusal to forgive your enemy. You are scum.

    • Thieves! Liars! Filthy Hobbitses, prescious!!
      You sound like a real charmer. Your argument gets dissected & exposed for the intellectually devoid drivel that it is so you try to resort to bullying & insults. I’m sure Jesus would be really proud of you.

  4. My alleged hypocrisy has not been proven. Personal attacks on me do not change the facts that the “writer” of this drivel is a thief and a liar. You lot support him. And atheopaths wonder why nobody can stand them. This is your “morality” and intellects”? LOL! Contemptable children. And the “writer” of this nonsense has been publicly spanked AGAIN.

    • So, what kind of ‘morality’ is it that allows you to throw around false DMCA claims whilst posting endless amounts of ‘stolen’ images on your posterous blog? Is that ‘Christian morality’?

    • “My alleged hypocrisy has not been proven.”

      Oh come off it. Everyone can see it for themselves.

      “And atheopaths wonder why nobody can stand them.”

      What in the hell is an atheopath? -path means feeling or suffering (esp. medical). -atheo is a little used prefix meaning atheism. I can only conclude that you think atheism is some kind of disease, even though your Bible says it is a form of self-deception. So I guess you don’t care what the Bible says.

      “This is your “morality” and intellects”? LOL!”

      Yes, it is part of morality to point out hypocrites. Matthew 7:3, you whiner.

      “Contemptable children.”

      Children follow rules because of fear and love, not based on reason. Sounds like Christians to me.

      “Too bad atheist “morality” does not work without force.”

      Coming from someone who believes morality cannot exist without an omnipotent God who punishes people who don’t believe in him, that’s pretty rich. By the way, taking down an image from your own server is not “force.” You seem to be vague on the meaning of many words.

    • Using without permission, hotlink or not, is illegal. Trusting Wikipedia as a legal resource is questionable at best.

    • Bob Sorensen. He’s confirmed this on Petersen’s blog, by having his sock puppet demonstrate the same failure to understand what a Poe is that Bob suffers from.

    • I should point out that what I meant to say there was that Bob has pretty much shown that he and Mr Gordons are one and the same, by demonstrating that weird claim about Poes.

    • Alex Botten is an atheist poe, making other atheists embarrassed and ashamed to be called atheists. It’s a “Dawkins Effect”, where Dawkins embarrasses atheists. Of course, atheism causes brain damage, and brain damaged atheopaths hang out together. Like so.

      Oh, and Rotten cut his own throat. There are screen shots of him lying and libeling. One is where he accuses others of being made up, then reversing himself, then re-reversing himself in typical brain damaged fashion. He is nothing but a jealous attention whore.

    • And yet again you show yourself to be a hate filled, bitter, old nobody who has such a tenuous grasp on reality that you cannot understand even the most basic of concepts.

      Also you’ve again proved that you have no idea what a Poe is. If I were, as you claim, an ‘atheist poe’ then that would mean I’m actually a believing Christian who is parodying atheism. So, am I? If I am, Bob, why aren’t you showing Christian love to me? I would suggest that the reason you are not showing Christian love to someone you have claimed is an ‘atheist poe’ is entirely due to the fact you don’t actually believe I am.

    • I assume CBB stands for Cowboy Bob. Mr Bob Soresen who also is known by a vast number of online pseudonyms including Piltdown Superman, Soldier for Jesus, Stormbringer’s Thunder and The Question Evolution Project.

    • He’s used (so far) Stormbringer, Uncle Pilty, Piltdown Superman, Rhomphia (pretending to be a female blogger!), Nicky Andolini (his attempt at being a porn obsessed, car loving, gun owner), and Mr Gordons. I’m sure there are more.

    • “Yet, I make myself known under them. ”

      No you don’t, even when caught out. You’ve yet to admit that Rhomphaia, Nicky Andolini, and Mr Gordons are all you, despite it being clear to everyone that they are.

    • ‘Vast number’ is FACT, Bob.

      I have never suggested any attempt to conceal your identity (others have – in the persona of the dirty Mister Gordons who needed a shower).

      Not sure why you seem so touchy. You appear to be rather troubled by facts.

      Any plans to actually link to the BCSE website the next time you quote from it on your blog or Facebook page? So people can check whether I am really a ‘troll’ as you have repeatedly alleged. Surely YECs who follow your blogs will want the facts rather than merely accusations and character assassination? (Or am I being naive.)

    • Unlike you on your Facebook page, the writer of this blog does not routinely censor rude or critical comments.

  5. Well, Mr. Sorenson banned me from commeting on his Facebook page and I’m not a trolling Atheist. I’m a Christian and a member of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. As has already been stated, Bob’s nonsense is opposed by all who care about science regardless of their religious belief.

    I’ve asked you this before Bob and you’ve refused to answert. What exactly is your background in science ? Since there’s nothing at all about your science qualifications on any of your websites or blogs, why should anyone listen to you if you’re unqualified in the subject. Why wont you come clean and tell us all your scietific baxkground ?


    • You were banned for being argumentative and breaking the rules. Also, can you tell me which Admin banned you? Was it Jason, the other Jason, Ashley, me, Kirk, or…?

      And this “you can’t talk about it unless you’re qualified so you’d better shut up and believe the evolutionary scientists” is pretty Stalinist, Buttercup.

    • Cowboy Bob

      If Peter’s question (NOT the words you are putting into his mouth – your standard tactic) is ‘Stalinist’, WHAT exactly is your Piltdown Superman blog? Where you allege that evidence contrary to evolution is “suppressed”. It sounds like you are alleging a conspiracy by the world’s scientific community. If so, I suggest that you are wrong.

      From your silence you appear to have no relevant scientific expertise. Indeed, rather than writing on scientific topics yourself you post links to material by others on particular scientific topics, and also refuse to discuss any relevant scientific topics with anyone – unless the person already agrees with your dogmatic anti-evolutionary stance.

  6. Atheists congratulating and defending each other for stupidity. Sorry for interrupting your circle fest.


    I have ATTEMPTED to add the following comment under this post (which is mostly about Eye on the ICR):
    Mr Jason Petersen
    I’m afraid you are poorly informed. The British Centre for Science Education (whose community forum, which is open to ALL, you allude to) is NOT an atheist organisation and it is NOT anti-Christian/anti-religion. It is against creationism in its various forms, as creationism is not supported by scientific evidence and relies on dogmatism. And your labelling of me as an ‘atheist’ is just your assumption. I used to be an evangelical Christian – not a creationist – but following a breakdown nine years’ ago I would now call myself an agnostic.
    You should be aware that Bob Sorensen has during recent months frequently libelled me on his blog – where comments are not permitted. This was apparently because I emailed him asking why he did not allow comments there (he does allow some comments on his Facebook page but I don’t post comments on Facebook) and because I ‘liked’ some posts made by some critics at ‘The Question Evolution Project’. The details of his past libellous comments were posted at the BCSE community forum. I have invited Bob to come onto the forum to discuss science but he has so far refused – he appears to prefer to lob insults towards all and sundry from the safety of his blog or Facebook page.
    Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr)



      Oh, and don’t forget that Question Evolution Day is February 12, we have a lot of support and I’ve done several interviews on the subject.


    • “And this “you can’t talk about it unless you’re qualified so you’d better shut up and believe the evolutionary scientists” is pretty Stalinist, Buttercup”

      No Bob

      As someone who worked in chemistry for 30 years I wouldn’t listen to anyone not qualified in the subject. Likewise, I wouldn’t listen to anyone making comments about geology who wasn’t a geologist, or making comments about advanced concepts in biology if they had no qualifications in the subject at all, or talking about astronomy and astro physics if they they didn’t work in the field.

      Why wont you come clean and tell us your science background Bob.

      I’m still waiting fort an answer.


    Following an exchange with Jason Petersen, I’ve just tried to add the following further comment:

    I take your point that you did not expressly state that the BCSE was an atheist organisation. However your blog post title clearly refers to ‘online atheists’ and in your opening paragraph you said “I chose their site [the BCSE site although your previous blog post earlier this week did not identify the site] as an example of the inefficiency the new atheist movement’s ineffectiveness at responding to Christians”. Thus you certainly did NOT state that the BCSE is against creationism, not against religion or atheistic. For someone not familiar with it to wrongly assume that the BCSE is an atheistic site would be an understandable mistake for someone to make. You also did not quote the organisation’s full name, which is why I suggested you were ‘uninformed’.
    Until recently a young Earth creationist (Marc Surtees) used to post regularly on the BCSE community forum. Peter Henderson and Michael Roberts are both Christians.
    “What I would expect for an agnostic is to be neutral on the position of whether or not God exists, but that is not the position that you take on the BCSE forums. Labeling you as an atheist would be quite accurate as I have never seen you stick up for any religion or any gods.” You will not find any posts by me there stating that God does not exist. You may find posts by me criticising how the Christian god, assuming he exists, behaves. The views expressed are personal and I do not represent the BCSE in any shape or form.
    “I saw no libeling in his blog. Even after reading your timeline on the BCSE forums, I still agree with Bob”.
    Please don’t tell me you approve of these!
    (Some of Bob’s libellous blog posts were subsequently taken down.)
    The point is that whilst I have sometimes criticised young Earth creationists online, I do so with FACTS (as in my review of Jonathan Sarfati’s book). Whereas Bob Sorensen is simply full of, frequently incorrect, insults.
    At the end of December he accused me on Facebook at the Question Evolution Project page of having been banned from his Facebook page – despite me previously informing him that I had never posted there.
    He wrote: “Note to all: Since Ashley Haworth-Roberts is a cowardly troll without the courage of his convictions, giving a “Like” to comments that are foolish, illogical, hateful and so forth, it is an automatic death sentence for the comments from now on. He said that he was banned from this Page, yet created his account *after* he made that lie. He cannot be bothered to actually comment himself.” (Eventually, after I contacted Facebook, he removed the accusation. He has accused me of lying at least once, but has NOT substantiated his accusation as I showed at the BCSE community forum.)
    There is plenty of what you call ’emotionally charged rhetoric’ on Bob’s Facebook page and in his many blog posts, in case you hadn’t noticed.
    I do NOT try to censor creationists. Nor does Eyeonthe ICR. I agree that Dawkins and Nye avoid debating them. However, whilst not a ‘one on one’, scientists HAVE recently debated creationists on UK TV (if you can access it, please enjoy):!/2013/01/is-it-time-for-all-religions-to-accept.html (blog entry dated 13 January referring to ‘The Big Questions’)
    I’m adding this attempted reply to the BCSE community forum (which Alex has just visited) and also the thread at EyeontheICR. (I did the same with the comment which you failed in moderation.)

    • Your victim game in your antichristian site is funny. Plus you make up your own ‘facts’. You’re so self absorbed that you think everything is about you. There is an administrator named Ashley, she signs her name, Bob isn’t the only one there you idiot. Stop being so self absorbed. How can anyone stand you? I have to go shower now, being here makes me feel dirty.

    • It was brave of you to come here Mister Gordons.

      Cheerio. 🙂

    • You should check out the page on facebook called scumbag atheist, all of you would fit right in.

  9. You should ask Bob about this - – an article where he posted a map of the area I live in, and identified the atheist he was talking about as a Mac user. Now, as my IP shows me as being in this area, and Bob’s blog tracking will easily show I am a mac user, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that he was talking about me….something he denied despite then clearly confirming it on another blog! You’ll note the grotesque libel in the piece, describing me as an unemployed, violent, homeless drunk. This is the man who has previously stated that he believed I frequent prostitutes, and then went as far as claiming my wife as one of those prostitutes!

    Bob Sorensen is a pathologically dishonest individual, with serious transference and projection issues.

  10. I wonder what Bob thinks of Christian websites such as Chhristians in science or Biologos ?

  11. I see that Petersen is STILL ‘moderating’ my attempted second response to him here:

    Here’s another attempted post for him to moderate, mainly responding to yet more rudeness from Sorensen which Petersen – who seems to want to defend Bob’s online behaviour – has apparently cleared in moderation (Cowboy Bob is stereo-typically lumping me in with Mr Botten – how convenient):
    “Bob/Piltdown Superman
    You are the one who peddles fantasies, not me. There is plenty of logic in my posts at the BCSE (I can’t speak for everybody there).
    Mister Gordons
    What has your comment about ‘atheist tyranny’ got to do with the BCSE?
    Jesse M
    Your comments about evolution, science education and secular humanism are totally ridiculous and completely incorrect.
    When will my previous attempted post be moderated please? You allow insults from Sorensen et al, yet to hesitate to allow my right of reply.” [Minor typo just spotted.]

  12. “Fair warning:
    If you are here for the sole purpose of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, (not reading/watching/listening to the evidence provided) you will find your posts removed.
    If you continue, you find yourselves removed.
    I know all the lame excuses you will use to object and deny it, but the fact remains that such behaviour is trolling and trolls aren’t welcome here.”
    Plus a cartoon of a ranting green figure, described as a ‘troll’.

    Who are these trolls that Bob wants to ban? Do they exist? Haven’t they all already been scared away from TEQP?

    Why he thinks I would ‘like’ his cartoon is beyond me, even though its words don’t describe things I have done since I have NEVER posted a single comment on his Facebook page – as Facebook should be able to confirm if he asks them.

  13. Strange how Bob has now gone very quiet.

    Since Bob claims to stand for biblical truth I’d like him to tell me which verses state the age of the Earth, talk about the fossil record, catastrophic plate tectonics, or indeed humans co existing in the Garden of Eden alongside dinosaurs ? I know of no such verses.

    Bob’s nonsense brings the bible and the gospel into disrepute.

    • Yes – he’s ignored my question to him under Peter’s later blog post (where he attacked this blog page).

    • You know the thing that Bob hates most? Being ignored. I vote everyone simply ignore him from now on. He’s a blow hard no-body who sounds like Boo Boo from Yogi Bear (have you heard any of his podcast interviews? Hilarious!) – he’s not worth wasting any more time on.

    • Have you got anything productive to say? If not, I suggest you go back to your ‘meme’-making. We could all do with a laugh.

    • You still haven’t demonstrated what law was broken.

      Also, I find it ironic that you’re calling yourself a cowboy now. The only thing you’ve ever roped is piles of bullshit.

    • Oh, but Bob, I thought YOU said ‘screenshots are public’? Are they not now? Were you wrong? Perhaps you were, but the picture of you on the blog now is hotlinked to Google, so I guess that little DMCA of yours resulted in precisely nothing!

      How’s your Posterous site looking btw? All those perfectly legal screen shots… why was that taken down I wonder?

    • Today Bob has stepped up his paranoia, and has had me blocked from Facebook for three days for posting an image. What was this image you wonder? Why, it was a screenshot of a Posterous 404 ‘Page Not Found’ error with Bob’s Posterous URL in the address bar! Apparently Bob believes this to be an infringement of his intellectual rights! Naturally I have queried this with Facebook, asking how the page can contain Bob’s property when it is the generic ‘no content’ page for Posterous. I hope that FB will see reason and recognise that Bob’s claim is entirely malicious, and lacking in any actual credibility.

      I assume he’s done this because he was upset at having the page pulled down after a valid, and successful, DMCA claim from myself (on the page he had posted numerous screen shots of my intellectual property – tweets, facebook updates, blog posts, and photographs that I own the copyright on). Given that Bob is very fond of false take down notices, I don’t know why he should have a problem with a genuine, legitimate one.

      I find it sad that Bob is so bereft of honour that he stoops to actions like this. I also find it amusing that Bob has effectively admitted that his ‘intellect’ is equal to an empty webpage.

    • A further comment submitted to Jason for him hopefully to read before he censors it here:


      You write a blog which refers to me by name and then censor my replies to your claims. Unbelievable!

      Young Earth creationists ALWAYS resort to censorship and bans whenever they are afraid of looking silly, dishonest or ignorant about science. I have been banned or censored by Your Origins Matter, Tas Walker, Tony Breeden and now you (as well as targeted in mostly untruthful hate posts by your friend Mr Sorensen – who clearly needs to grow up).

      Thus your claims about me are permitted to ‘stand’ even though I dealt with them in my second post. And Sorensen is permitted by you to attack me and make assumptions about me once again – whilst I am denied the right of reply. Unfair. Of course, had I made an idiot of myself you would not have needed to apply censorship.

      My first censored post also took issue with your claim about Bob Sorensen’s blog posts that “I saw no libeling in his blog. Even after reading your timeline on the BCSE forums, I still agree with Bob”. I gave THREE examples of his libel of myself and others.

      As for Bob’s ludicrous claim: “I have some things to point out from the “former Christian” (who has been described as a bitter apostate that cannot connect two logical thoughts”, or something like that, and we have seen the truth in that statement)”. I put it to you Mr Petersen that I indeed did connect a number of very logical thoughts in my censored comments – and THAT is why you are censoring me.

      Sorensen claims to have ‘proven’ his claims against me. He is lying (and you are abetting a liar).

      For example, see here:
      Where Bob claimed to have documented ‘dishonesty’ and ‘irrationality’ on my part, and supplied two links. However, as I said at the time: “Bob evasively lied about whales’ vestigial bones and libelled the critic as a ‘troll’ in his blog of 11 Dec. My comment was correct. Also, I have never denied ‘stalking’ Bob a little during part of the autumn – he keeps mentioning my open admission of this! Yet in his further text … he posts to links to places where he claims to have documented dishonesty on my part. So let’s look at those links. On the FIRST link he accused me of ‘spamming’ and falsely accused me of ‘blackmail’. He did NOT show any lies on my part. On the SECOND link he complained about me e mailing him, said I had made some assumptions, and referred to ‘off-topic harassment’ (at in the early autumn). Again, he did NOT show any lies or dishonesty on my part”.

      I showed this at the BCSE community forum – which Bob is trying to stop his fans accessing. I did so at 1.14 am GMT on 23 December:
      Read my post if you don’t believe me.

      Bob may not like me reading his blogs and so forth and sometimes criticising them but that does NOT make me a liar. I’m sure you would agree.

      On 23 December I wrote at the BCSE (where Bob has been invited to post if he has something to say to me): “I have nothing to hide. If Bob has nothing to hide he will flag the BCSE community forum thread on his blog. If he has something to hide, he will not”. I’m still waiting.

      Of course, you will not publish this! Because young Earth creationists like you are AFRAID of the truth, afraid of losing face, and determined to mislead the followers of their blogs and online articles.

      Thus I will publish this at the British Centre for Science Education (a place where creationists are NOT censored, should you wish to respond there).

      Your claim that I show too much ’emotion’ is utterly hilarious given that you have simultaneously published the following: “But, like he did at my Amazon book review, he decided to cry and whine, off-topic. Jason summed it up nicely, that is obsession with me is creepy” and “Ashley is so narcissistic, he made the claim that when a post on the Facebook Page was made and signed “Ashley”, that it was me taking pot-shots at him. Uh, no, not only do we have several Admins, but one is a woman named Ashley, and she signs some of her posts. Get over yourself”.

      Calm down dear.

      You final sentence sounds rather like blackmail and is to be pitied.

      Ashley Haworth-Roberts

  14. Clarification:

    I wrote above, on 3 February and addressed to Bob Sorensen:
    “I have never suggested any attempt to conceal your identity (others have – in the persona of the dirty Mister Gordons who needed a shower)”.

    I should perhaps point out that when I wrote at the BCSE Community Forum recently “I was not the only one at THIS community forum who assumed the ‘Ashley’ at The Question Evolution Project was a false name” I was not suggesting that Bob was posting under a pseudonym – as somebody else did above when suggesting that ‘Mister Gordons’ is Bob. I was actually suggesting (incorrectly as it turned out) that he was adding the name ‘Ashley’ after some of his most recent posts at the Question Evolution Project Facebook page for some reason – perhaps to make me think he was referring to me.

    • He has duly censored most of my post (as I predicted), called me ‘insane’, and defended the behaviour of Sorensen again.

      My response to him at his blog (hidden from view to others prior to being failed in moderation I assume):
      “I was right that you would censor me again. YECs are so predictable.You do not know me but you are libelling me by calling me ‘insane’ (the original blog post speculated that I might be ‘bat crazy’).

      You are a disgrace. No wonder you support Sorensen’s behaviour.

      Which is normally gross libel and false accusations (not only of me).

      In my case solely because I sent a few emails months ago, criticised at a public community forum that is open to all the pseudo-science or science denial in some of his blog posts/Facebook comments, voted against an aggressive review that was flagged on the blog (the version at his blog would NOT have caused me to vote ‘no’), and have voted for certain posts by other people on his Facebook page.

      He is the one who needs to act mature and ‘cool’. He appears unable to tolerate any criticism.

      I am sufficiently thick skinned by the way to recognise name calling and censorship as confirmation that the YECs who indulge in it are uncomfortable and insecure – presumably because they have run out of arguments for their scientific claims, feel a bit threatened, and don’t want to lose face in front of their frequently highly biased fanbase.

      Mr Sorensen spends a lot of time (it may his job) obsessively complaining in his blogs and on Facebook about ‘trolls’. You support his behaviour. Double standards!

      It was ‘big’ of you to allow ONE (polite) response by me – after you suggested in public that I might be ‘bat crazy’.

      I had a breakdown in 2004. I had to retire early on ill-health grounds in 2007. I attempted suicide in 2004 and I use a wheelchair. I became unemployable. I gradually lost my faith in a loving God (and I discovered young Earth creationist fundamentalism and also science). I need to occupy myself. Posting online takes more mental effort than watching TV or going for walks.

      I have fully RECOVERED.

      Whether you respond to this is YOUR choice.”

    • ‘He’ in my post just now is Jason Petersen of course.

      I note that the one – polite – comment by me which Petersen deigned to allow was made AFTER Sorensen had appeared and falsely accused me and others of “poisoning the well” and resorting to “personal attacks when they cannot actually deal with the topic at hand”.

    • Give us an example of me ‘poisoning the well’ and ‘not dealing with the topic at hand’ Bob.

      Put up or shut up.

      Don’t just post a link – also briefly EXPLAIN when, where and how I did these things!

      And you should note that your friend Jason REPEATEDLY censored me for allegedly being ’emotional’. From his last comment under the recent blog post: “I’ve had to delete more comments from him since that reply. They have become increasingly more emotional.”

      He clearly has double standards, because he does not censor YOU when you are emotional. I suspect he had ANOTHER reason for hiding my responses apart from ’emotion’.

      There’s a logical thought for you Cowboy Bob.

      Perhaps even a couple of logical thoughts.

      Bet you wish I REALLY could not string two logical thoughts together.

    • Ashley, Bob’s not worth it. He won’t be able to produce a single example of what he’s claiming happened. For more than a year I asked him to supply evidence of the ‘logical fallacies’ he claimed I’d made, and to link to anywhere where he’d ‘spanked’ me, he was unable to do either.

      He’s a trollish little blowhard gnome, furiously projecting his own failings onto all around him. He’s a minnow, fit only for mockery and abuse.

  15. Pingback: Piltdown Superman, AKA Stormbringer, AKA Bob Sorensen « Gods that don't Exist

  16. Having just successfully argued ‘Fair Use’ to WordPress over a handful of images Bob contested (resulting in ALL the material being reinstated), I’d recommend just counter claiming.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s