Is Fundamentalism a Religious Movement or a Psychological Disorder?

[sooda]

Yup. Interestingly, I was just reading an article about a high school in Georgia ending the practice of broadcasting Christian prayers over loudspeakers before football games, and many of the reactions from local Christians generally mirror what you describe...."but...but...we've always done this".

Saying a prayer before ballgame is NOT a big deal.



Excerpt:

After a hiatus during World War I, conflict between conservatives and modernists was renewed in 1918. A number of conservative conferences in New York City and Philadelphia led to the formation of a larger and more comprehensive organization in 1919, the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association.

The 1919 conference placed planks in a platform on which the fundamentalist movement would stand for years to come. Conservative-fundamentalist leaders reiterated the creedal basis of the movement and called for the rejection of modernism and related trends, especially the teaching of the theory of evolution.

They turned away from the universities (almost totally controlled by administrations and faculties hostile to the fundamentalist position) and placed their faith in the more recently founded Bible institutes.

Finally, they denounced the unitive and cooperative spirit exemplified in the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America and threatened schism if this type of spiritual decline persisted.

continued

Christian fundamentalism - The late 19th to the mid-20th century

 

[shmogie]

So Answers in Genesis aren't Christian fundamentalists? The Quiverfull Movement aren't Christian fundamentalists? The "Train up a Child" people aren't Christian fundamentalists? Christians who focus on opposing LGBTQ folks aren't fundamentalists? End Times Ministries aren't Christian fundamentalists?


And you're actually arguing that none of those groups above "attempt to follow the fundamentals of the Christian faith as defined by the New Testament"?


You're reacting defensively and emotionally rather than thinking objectively here. That's understandable given that you consider yourself to be a fundamentalist, but try and step back for a second and think of it this way....

Fundamentalist Christians are indeed primarily defined by how they believe in and adhere to what they see as the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Those who are in that group of people also tend to exhibit a set of behaviors psychological traits, such as those I've listed in this thread.
I agree that some exhibit all of those traits, some a few, some none. Some of those traits aren´t bad, or negative, some are.

I would love to see the criteria for this apparent study, and know the size of the sampling, and who they were.

The MMPI would probably work as well to identify these traits, but there it is.

So, I believe Christ performed miracles, does that make me mentally ill ?

BTW I never spanked my kids, does that make me sane again ?
Understand? I'm not saying that Christian fundamentalists are defined by the behaviors and traits I listed, I'm saying they tend to exhibit those traits (as evidenced by the groups I've cited).


See above.

 

[shmogie]

Religious fundamentalism was reactionary against bobbed hair, jazz, flapper dresses, women’s suffrage and modernity.

Uh, I am a Christian fundamentalist and love classic rock played very loud, I believe the NT teaches total equality for women, I think the thong bikini is a little too much, but I have to admit, it is very difficult for me not to look.

Whatever modernity is, as you define it, I probably am not against modernism.

 

[Jose Fly]

Saying a prayer before ballgame is NOT a big deal.

It is when the government does it. I guarantee you if the school broadcast a Muslim prayer the Christians would quickly understand.

Excerpt:

After a hiatus during World War I, conflict between conservatives and modernists was renewed in 1918. A number of conservative conferences in New York City and Philadelphia led to the formation of a larger and more comprehensive organization in 1919, the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association.

The 1919 conference placed planks in a platform on which the fundamentalist movement would stand for years to come. Conservative-fundamentalist leaders reiterated the creedal basis of the movement and called for the rejection of modernism and related trends, especially the teaching of the theory of evolution.

They turned away from the universities (almost totally controlled by administrations and faculties hostile to the fundamentalist position) and placed their faith in the more recently founded Bible institutes.

Finally, they denounced the unitive and cooperative spirit exemplified in the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America and threatened schism if this type of spiritual decline persisted.

continued

Christian fundamentalism - The late 19th to the mid-20th century

Very informative. Thanks for posting.

 

[Jose Fly]

So, I believe Christ performed miracles, does that make me mentally ill ?

No idea what you're talking about.

BTW I never spanked my kids, does that make me sane again ?

Again, no idea what you're talking about.

 

[sooda]

It is when the government does it. I guarantee you if the school broadcast a Muslim prayer the Christians would quickly understand.


Very informative. Thanks for posting.

When I take Saudia airlines to Arabia, they say a prayer for travelers before takeoff. I like it.

I am sort of a live and let live type. My Dutch and Lebanese classmates didn't recite the Pledge of Allegiance and it never seemed to bother them.

 

[Jose Fly]

When I take Saudia airlines to Arabia, they say a prayer for travelers before takeoff. I like it.

Saudi Arabia is a theocracy; the US isn't.

I am sort of a live and let live type. My Dutch and Lebanese classmates didn't recite the Pledge of Allegiance and it never seemed to bother them.

Different issue.

 

[sooda]

Saudi Arabia is a theocracy; the US isn't.


Different issue.

We were all living in Arabia.

 

[Curious George]

I am a Christian fundamentalist. I try and adhere to the fundamental principles of the Church as defined in the NT and as the Apostolic Church did.

Using the word as a purely negative connotation, then attaching it to mental illness is language manipulation with a nefarious purpose, to define Christians like me as somehow harmful to others.

It is a lie, it is buls**t, it is muddying the waters to make a blanket accusation, and I will emphatically call it out for what it is.

If the OP wants to point out some churches who have gone off the rails, or people who violate the fundamentals of Christianity he should do so, specifically.

Questioning at what point to draw the line at "fundamentalist" is a good point of discussion. I think that you bring up a good point. Perhaps extremist would be a better term, but that is vague as well. I don't think it is necessarily going off the rails here that is in question either. Rather it is the way certain groups assimilate and accommodate new information, how some groups rationalize and condemn certain behaviors, and how some groups see themselves as superior.

I certainly do not think that the discussion was restricted to christian fundamentalists. But the term fundamentalism is most often found in christianity and Islam, so I could see why you assumed such.

I do not think fundamentalism is merely adhering to the fundamentals of a religion but rather deals with the type of interpretation (i.e. strict and literal). Perhaps that is just my bias with the word.

Regarding the OP i think most human disorders can be seen as spectrum behaviors. I certainly do think fundamentalist religions appeal to a specific part of that spectrum. Whether or not we classify that part of the spectrum of human behavior as having a mental disorder is beside the point in my mind. A better question would be do people at that specific point need any help or accommodation. If so, how can we help and what can we offer? As with all behaviors I think we need to be mindful of when a specific type of behavior can become harmful.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The list is endless. It is hard to find a creation "scientist" that does not lie. These scientists can do real work in their own fields, but when the attack evolution they all seem to lie. For example a recent new member got fed up with the fact that he could not call a liar a liar. Here is a video where he teamed up with Bill Ludlow to go over how Dr. James Tour lied in his attempt to refute abiogenesis. Tour is a well respected synthetic organic chemist, yet he made errors in his refutation that an undergrad would not make. Tour knew better and yet he made these claims. Worse yet he attacked a fellow scientist. His lies were so bad that he actually apologized to Jack Szostak. Of course the extremely dishonest Discovery Institute still has the video that this was based upon up on its site.

Creationists that are not scientists have the excuse of plausible deniability. When they repeat lies they may not know that they are telling lies. With an education that excuse goes away.

This is not the thread to continue this conversation. However, since you brought it up, I did some further research....
Suffice it to say: Dr. Tour did apologize, but only for calling Dr Szostak a liar, not for lying about any of the evidence.

Let’s examine Dr. Hurd’s accusations:

The Substance of the Attack
Regardless, what about the substance of Hurd’s attack? Is Tour really a serial liar who, in less than four minutes, shows that he doesn’t understand undergraduate level chemistry? You be the judge:

1. According to Hurd, Tour was lying when he criticized as scientifically inaccurate two figures in Jack Szostak’s article labeled “Simple sugars.” When I asked Tour about this criticism, he responded that Szostak himself conceded to him that these figures were inaccurate! Tour wrote me:

“As listed, the sugars do not look like sugars. One needs to have the double bond shown to one of the oxygen atoms or they are not sugars. Shown are a diol and a triol. Even Jack, when he and I spoke on the phone, conceded that point. And he blamed the error on a staff artist from Scientific American, and the mistake was transcribed when the article was used by Nature. I have written several times for the News and Views section of Nature and Nature series journals. It is an honor to be so asked. But we are asked as authors to show care to ensure accuracy. And the galley proofs are returned to us for our careful check and documented approval.”

So much for this supposed lie by Tour.

2. According to Hurd, Tour was lying when he questioned the scientific accuracy of two figures in Szostak’s article labeled “Cyanide derivatives.” Not so, says Tour, who responded to me:

“Either we fill in the hydrogen atoms or we show the pi bonds. But we cannot omit both. Moreover, the convention is that all heteroatoms should bear the hydrogen atoms. Only carbon can be devoid of hydrogen in the convention. But that is only to fill the valance states. So one needs to see the pi bonds if we are omitting the hydrogen atoms. Therefore, as drawn, the organic starting materials are glycerol (1,2,3-propanetriol or glycerin), ethylene glycol (1,2-ethanediol), diaminomethane (methanediamine), and 1-aminopropane. The latter two are troubling in light of the text which mentions iron cyanide. Iron(III) cyanide complexes are extremely stable; there is little free cyanide expected to be in the solution, so maybe Szostak is speaking of something else.“

Once again, the charge that Tour was lying or incompetent disintegrates.

Another Charge Evaporates
3. According to Hurd, Tour was lying as well when he claimed that the diagram labeled “RNA nucleotide” in Szostak’s article was inaccurate. Tour’s response to me: “it is not a nucleotide since it is devoid of any stereochemistry.” Again, the charge that Tour doesn’t understand basic chemistry seems to evaporate.

Tour went on to explain that the errors he found in the drawings pale in comparison to the biggest problem with Szostak’s Nature article:

…all of the above is minor compared to Szostak’s showing that in a single step, heat and light can make a compound that resembles a dehydrated nucleotide (though it is not a nucleotide since it is devoid of any stereochemistry) from “simple sugars” and “cyanide derivatives.” …The major issue is that heat and light cannot afford that conversion from ethylene glycol, glycerol, or the sugar products derived thereupon after their oxidation to the aldehydes. To present that heat and UV light can act on these compounds (even if we are to use these 2 and 3 carbon simple sugars rather than glycerol and ethylene glycol, and to use any simple cyanide derivative) to afford anything like the listed “RNA nucleotide” (albeit not a nucleotide since it shows no stereochemistry) is incorrect and misleading. There are so many steps involved in such a transformation. But to .... biologists, like Szostak, explaining to the non-expert, he feels the details are not essential for him to point out. But the details are everything!

4. Hurd further accuses Tour of lying because Tour declared that Szostak’s article was published by the journal Nature. Hurd argues that the article only appeared in a special section of Nature described by the journal as “an editorially independent supplement produced with the financial support of third parties.” Hurd seems to be implying that Nature wasn’t really editorially responsible for the article. But if you follow the “About this content” link provided by Nature itself, you find an expanded explanation that makes clear Szostak’s article was vetted and approved by Nature’s regular editorial staff. “Editorially independent” means not that Szostak’s article was independent from Nature, but that it was independent from the influence of funders. The content was “already deemed worthy of coverage by our editorial departments… The ultimate approval of any story rests with the editorial department.” So the article in question was definitely published by Nature — just like Tour said. Again, no error, and certainly no lie.

The Primary Literature
5. Hurd chastises Tour for introducing this section of his lecture by saying he was going to look at the “primary literature” and then immediately talking about Szostak’s article, which was a popular-level summary rather than a piece of primary original research. At last, a fair point (sort of), which Tour concedes in his letter to me. But this is a quibble. Whether a popular piece or original research, the article in question was published with the backing of one of the world’s most prestigious science journals and written by one of the world’s leading authorities on origin of life research. That definitely makes the article fair game for Tour and others to criticize. It should be added that Tour went on in his talk to critique other articles that unquestionably are part of the “primary literature,” just like he promised, and he does this even more in his letter to me and in an earlier essay. So this particular complaint is much ado about nothing.

Finally, Hurd dismisses Tour’s lecture as a whole by asserting: “There are too many falsehoods, and misrepresentations to review in detail.” But if there really were so many falsehoods in Tour’s talk, you would think Hurd would choose to refute the ones that were the most central to Tour’s hour-long critique. Instead, Hurd obsesses about four minutes where Tour criticizes one short article. I’ve seen Hurd’s critique treated online as if it were a devastating takedown of Tour’s views. But anyone who watches Tour’s entire lecture can easily see that all Hurd offers is (at best) a skirmish at the edges.

Is that because he and others have no serious response to offer to Tour’s main critique? Judge for yourself by watching Tour’s entire talk or reading his full response to his critics. “

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/05/professor-james-tour-a-liar-for-jesus/

You said, “The list [of lies] is endless.” And then proceed to present one incident. Which is questionable.

 

[Audie]

Fundies naturally gravitate to people on
the fringes and to woo woo.

Perhaps our local self-styled "psychiatrist"
can explain it.

Anyone?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

From the Christian perspective, fundamentalism is simply adherence to the fundamentals of the faith in the NT. The Apostolic Church was composed of fundamentalists, they adhered to the fundamentals of Christianity as detailed in the NT.
This game with words to deride people is disgusting, immoral, and disingenuous.

I am aware. I am also aware that similar thinking justifies the infliction of dire and serious injuries to other. For example, "convertion therapy." It doesn't work. It makes people depressed and suicidal all because they are taught to be ashamed and embarrassed of who they are, and that who they are will lead them to Hell. Or it works for awhile, as many trendy fad lifestyles do, and then it fades, back to into the negative psychologically. That "therapy" makes people sick and is known for killing some. Yet, Fundamentalist Christians are pretty much the only ones who support it. Everyone else has renounced it and condemned it.
And another example of Fundamentalist behaviors that appear mentally ill are where this is a LBGT youth, chances are pretty good the child has Fundamentalist parents who rejected them and kicked them out of their home. Such a lack of empathy, especially towards one's own child, under any other circumstances the parents would be subjected to a mental health screening and treatment recommended because such a lack of empathy is a symptom of a psychotic illness.
And don't forget the delusions. There is no evidence for Noah's flood, but tons of evidence to suggest it never happened. There is no evidence for a confusion of languages. There is no evidence for a Biblical Genesis. There is no evidence that all the Founding Fathers were Christian and wanted to establish America on Christian values. But yet these things are all taught as true in some Fundamentalist home schooling curriculum. And often believed, typically and often, by Fundamentalists. Even Catholics, who believe in some sort of weird alchemical transmutation, and most other non-Fundamentalists denominations, have accepted what we've learned over the past thousands of years. Especially in developed nations, Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists are largely the only ones left who still embrace aspects of what passed for morality and ethics in the Bronze Age, and the mythos and traditional stories of those who didn't know yet how big the Earth really is or what causes thunder and rain.
Basically, Fundamentalists aren't behaving much differently than the Catholics were during the days of Copernicus and Galileo.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That there is no actual truth and everything
is relative

For many things the truth is quite certain. Just as it is truth that morality is relative to the one speaking for it. There is no real cosmic or supernatural force that has ever enforced anyone's interpretation of "morality." Really, we're pretty much figuring out things as we go along. And modern history, living memory even, is full of examples where that can all change over a few decades into something completely different.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree, but ac

actual honesty about reality is needed for a solution.

Americans have owned semi automatic rifles for a century, I have owned one for almost 50 years, they are very, very common.

The AR-15 platform is just another semi automatic rifle, it can do nothing more than mine, I can fire 15 rounds just as fast as it can.

High capacity magazines make it able to fire longer. I can see restricting those, but I view restrictions as just another coil around the body by an Anaconda, progressive, and deadly to the 2nd Amendment. Beto spilled the beans, a semi secret democrat goal has been exposed, confiscation.

The AR-15 is the most popular hunting rifle in the country. It is light, shorter for easier handling, very tough and reliable. Perhaps this popularity puts it in the hands, almost always illegally, of crazy shooters,

Personally, being a fan of classic firearms, I hate the look of the AR-15 and derivatives, I never planned to own one
yet I am thinking of buying one, because I can, and democrats go nuts over them. It would be interesting to have someone try and confiscate it.

I have never believed that an inanimate object is the driving force for people who murder. I believe banning any or all firearms will have little effect on murder rates, they will always be available for people to whom laws mean nothing.

It is a societal problem, and complicated. Every knee jerk reaction to " do something""is a feel good play, that will fail.

The hue and cry now is background checks. Every firearm sold legally has had a background check for it´s new owner for decades. When they fail it is because some government entity had not reported what should have been reported on the check.

Another federal program is stupid, but if it appeases the gun haters for a while so be it.

The issue will never be solved until everyone who has a stake sits down and communicates trying to find a solution acceptable to all.

The place to start, that has jurisdiction would be the House Justice committee chaired by Nadler. Of course it is completely tied pu and wasting time on a dead horse, impeachment.

Obviously mass killings are not important to that committee.

There you go. A dim assessment of political reality, of all politicians, of those who hate the second amendment.

30 years ago the legislators would all work together for a solution, and compromise as required. Today they don´t even speak to each other.

The cultural war over guns will rage on, and it could get very ugly.

The last so called assault rifle ban was rescinded, because it was proven by the DOJ that the ban had no effect on violent crime rates.

I grew up with guns of all sorts. I just recently sold a Sig Sauer M400 Enchanced. That kind of firepower is widely available now when it was not 60 years ago. It is the AR-15 platform that is a favorite with mass shooters along with AK-47 semi-autos. Sure, in the 20's and 30's, a person could get a Tommy gun and spray the competition, but their criminal use was largely restricted to use on other criminals or bank robberies where getting away was a priority over mass killing.

I would be the among the last to suggest bans on specific firearms, though I could live with restrictions on high capacity magazines, though, I think that would just keep them out of my hands and not those of the people looking to kill others. My big question in all of this is, what does this or other political claims have to do with the OP?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A lot has happened in the past 100 years. … like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi, the tablets at Dilmun, the Ugaritic tablets.. wonderful, wonderful information that we never had access to before. Noah Kramer spent 50 years translating the tablets found at Sumer...

Scary, Scary stuff...…….

We are finding new ways to look at stuff we already have and scientists poking through collections keep coming up with artifacts that have been gathering dust and turn out to be of critical importance. University and museum collections of anything are a treasure trove to be tapped. But for lack of manpower (and womanpower) much of it never gets looked over quickly, frequently, or by the right person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is not the thread to continue this conversation. However, since you brought it up, I did some further research....
Suffice it to say: Dr. Tour did apologize, but only for calling Dr Szostak a liar, not for lying about any of the evidence.

I know. to put it politely Tour is a lying turd himself.

Let’s examine Dr. Hurd’s accusations:

The Substance of the Attack
Regardless, what about the substance of Hurd’s attack? Is Tour really a serial liar who, in less than four minutes, shows that he doesn’t understand undergraduate level chemistry? You be the judge:

And your source showed it to be dishonest by switching up the order. The first thing that Hurd talked about was the primary literature lie. The following should have been first: Worse yet your source screwed the pooch big time. You don't go to the self admitted liar (he apologized for calling Szostak a liar because he knew that he was not one) for confirmation, you go to an independent source. Or you could at least have watched the video. At 12:39 to 13:00 he explains how that is a simplified sketch of a simple sugar. It shows the backbone of it. Again, in a simplified sketch details are often left out. For example the double bond that Tour complained about being missing. There was an oxygen attached to a carbon in the sketch. Chemists know that that is a double bond. For it not to be one would be a rare exception. Tour would have known that and he should have recognized it as the backbone of

The Primary Literature
5. Hurd chastises Tour for introducing this section of his lecture by saying he was going to look at the “primary literature” and then immediately talking about Szostak’s article, which was a popular-level summary rather than a piece of primary original research. At last, a fair point (sort of), which Tour concedes in his letter to me. But this is a quibble. Whether a popular piece or original research, the article in question was published with the backing of one of the world’s most prestigious science journals and written by one of the world’s leading authorities on origin of life research. That definitely makes the article fair game for Tour and others to criticize. It should be added that Tour went on in his talk to critique other articles that unquestionably are part of the “primary literature,” just like he promised, and he does this even more in his letter to me and in an earlier essay. So this particular complaint is much ado about nothing.

Finally, Hurd dismisses Tour’s lecture as a whole by asserting: “There are too many falsehoods, and misrepresentations to review in detail.” But if there really were so many falsehoods in Tour’s talk, you would think Hurd would choose to refute the ones that were the most central to Tour’s hour-long critique. Instead, Hurd obsesses about four minutes where Tour criticizes one short article. I’ve seen Hurd’s critique treated online as if it were a devastating takedown of Tour’s views. But anyone who watches Tour’s entire lecture can easily see that all Hurd offers is (at best) a skirmish at the edges.

This is no small lie of Tours. It is a rather large one. Tour went batpoop nuts about the fact that this article was in Nature. He was the one that kept shouting that "this is the primary literature" and other such lines. Again it was an informal editorial where one is not expected to have the accuracy one needs in a peer reviewed article. Sorry, this was still a lie of Tours and a big one. The man is not an idiot so he knows the difference between a peer reviewed article and an editorial. You may not understand the difference, but Tours is educated. Ignorance is no longer a valid defense for him.

1. According to Hurd, Tour was lying when he criticized as scientifically inaccurate two figures in Jack Szostak’s article labeled “Simple sugars.” When I asked Tour about this criticism, he responded that Szostak himself conceded to him that these figures were inaccurate! Tour wrote me:

“As listed, the sugars do not look like sugars. One needs to have the double bond shown to one of the oxygen atoms or they are not sugars. Shown are a diol and a triol. Even Jack, when he and I spoke on the phone, conceded that point. And he blamed the error on a staff artist from Scientific American, and the mistake was transcribed when the article was used by Nature. I have written several times for the News and Views section of Nature and Nature series journals. It is an honor to be so asked. But we are asked as authors to show care to ensure accuracy. And the galley proofs are returned to us for our careful check and documented approval.”

So much for this supposed lie by Tour.

Again, this was a simplified article, and yes they were sugars. The gone on the left shows the backbone of glyceraldehyde a very simple sugar:

Glyceraldehyde - Wikipedia

That was still a lie by Tour since he was educated and he knew better. For him ignorance is not an excuse. An undergrad taking organic chemistry would have recognized the structure. Sorry it is still a lie.

2. According to Hurd, Tour was lying when he questioned the scientific accuracy of two figures in Szostak’s article labeled “Cyanide derivatives.” Not so, says Tour, who responded to me:

“Either we fill in the hydrogen atoms or we show the pi bonds. But we cannot omit both. Moreover, the convention is that all heteroatoms should bear the hydrogen atoms. Only carbon can be devoid of hydrogen in the convention. But that is only to fill the valance states. So one needs to see the pi bonds if we are omitting the hydrogen atoms. Therefore, as drawn, the organic starting materials are glycerol (1,2,3-propanetriol or glycerin), ethylene glycol (1,2-ethanediol), diaminomethane (methanediamine), and 1-aminopropane. The latter two are troubling in light of the text which mentions iron cyanide. Iron(III) cyanide complexes are extremely stable; there is little free cyanide expected to be in the solution, so maybe Szostak is speaking of something else.“

Once again, the charge that Tour was lying or incompetent disintegrates.

Again, no, this is pure BS and Tour knows it. This is also why his first lie is so important. This is not the "primary literature" and such accuracy is not required. You are talking to others that understand the science and shortcuts are allowed. That is not allowed in the primary literature. Not only was he lying in his video. Now he is lying in his excuses. In the video Tour said "That's not cyanide". Well the paper did not say cyanide. It said exactly what Tour said in his response "cyanide derivatives". Tour is demanding primary literature accuracy in an article that was not meant for the primary literature. And when one looks at that chemical it was cyanonitrene. A cyanide derivative:

lambda1-Azanylformonitrile


Not only did Tour lie, he lied about his lie.

Almost forgot, this was right after the sugars that Tour lied about.



To be continued:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another Charge Evaporates
3. According to Hurd, Tour was lying as well when he claimed that the diagram labeled “RNA nucleotide” in Szostak’s article was inaccurate. Tour’s response to me: “it is not a nucleotide since it is devoid of any stereochemistry.” Again, the charge that Tour doesn’t understand basic chemistry seems to evaporate.

Tour went on to explain that the errors he found in the drawings pale in comparison to the biggest problem with Szostak’s Nature article:

…all of the above is minor compared to Szostak’s showing that in a single step, heat and light can make a compound that resembles a dehydrated nucleotide (though it is not a nucleotide since it is devoid of any stereochemistry) from “simple sugars” and “cyanide derivatives.” …The major issue is that heat and light cannot afford that conversion from ethylene glycol, glycerol, or the sugar products derived thereupon after their oxidation to the aldehydes. To present that heat and UV light can act on these compounds (even if we are to use these 2 and 3 carbon simple sugars rather than glycerol and ethylene glycol, and to use any simple cyanide derivative) to afford anything like the listed “RNA nucleotide” (albeit not a nucleotide since it shows no stereochemistry) is incorrect and misleading. There are so many steps involved in such a transformation. But to .... biologists, like Szostak, explaining to the non-expert, he feels the details are not essential for him to point out. But the details are everything!

And again Tour lies. Keep watching the video from where I told you to start to watch. The simplified sketch is a nucleotide. Let's forget about this new lie where he uses a strawman of how that nucleotide formed. But it clearly is a nucleotide, the simplified sketch is merely rotated from the norm. Guess what scientists do in articles of this sort all of the time? They simplify structures, double bonds are very often not shown, and they are rotated to make them more interesting. Real chemical in life are not all oriented in the same direction so illustrations match that. Yes, it does not have the same orientation that one would show in a peer reviewed article and it was simplified, but any undergrad chemistry major deep enough into organic chemistry would have recognized that as a nucleotide. Tour is still lying.

4. Hurd further accuses Tour of lying because Tour declared that Szostak’s article was published by the journal Nature. Hurd argues that the article only appeared in a special section of Nature described by the journal as “an editorially independent supplement produced with the financial support of third parties.” Hurd seems to be implying that Nature wasn’t really editorially responsible for the article. But if you follow the “About this content” link provided by Nature itself, you find an expanded explanation that makes clear Szostak’s article was vetted and approved by Nature’s regular editorial staff. “Editorially independent” means not that Szostak’s article was independent from Nature, but that it was independent from the influence of funders. The content was “already deemed worthy of coverage by our editorial departments… The ultimate approval of any story rests with the editorial department.” So the article in question was definitely published by Nature — just like Tour said. Again, no error, and certainly no lie.

And perhaps I should have moved this to that top as well. But yes, of course it was approved by Nature. It was not peer reviewed. But the chemists there could see that the article was simplified but accurate. This complaint of Tour only shows that he is still not honest. Nature gave approval because this is all material that already has passed peer review and was not all that amazing. It was merely a light educational article for those without too much knowledge of the topic. There is nothing unusual about that, nor is the precision that Tour complained about not being there needed. That is needed in peer reviewed articles and it was in those articles.

Is that because he and others have no serious response to offer to Tour’s main critique? Judge for yourself by watching Tour’s entire talk or reading his full response to his critics. “

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/05/professor-james-tour-a-liar-for-jesus/

You said, “The list [of lies] is endless.” And then proceed to present one incident. Which is questionable.

I am sorry, but you screwed the pooch yourself here. That video is a very serious response to Tour's lies. You made the error of relying on a lying source (the Discovery Institute) that went to a self admitted liar (Tour) to defend his lies. This "one incident" is not questionable. It is not minor. Tour actually apologized for his lies about Szostak but he has not apologized for his lies, and even though he lied when he called Szostak a liar and admitted it and apologized for it, he still has not had the Discovery Institute take down his video where he does lie. That shows that his apology was mealy mouthed at best.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And again Tour lies. Keep watching the video from where I told you to start to watch. The simplified sketch is a nucleotide. Let's forget about this new lie where he uses a strawman of how that nucleotide formed. But it clearly is a nucleotide, the simplified sketch is merely rotated from the norm. Guess what scientists do in articles of this sort all of the time? They simplify structures, double bonds are very often not shown, and they are rotated to make them more interesting. Real chemical in life are not all oriented in the same direction so illustrations match that. Yes, it does not have the same orientation that one would show in a peer reviewed article and it was simplified, but any undergrad chemistry major deep enough into organic chemistry would have recognized that as a nucleotide. Tour is still lying.



And perhaps I should have moved this to that top as well. But yes, of course it was approved by Nature. It was not peer reviewed. But the chemists there could see that the article was simplified but accurate. This complaint of Tour only shows that he is still not honest. Nature gave approval because this is all material that already has passed peer review and was not all that amazing. It was merely a light educational article for those without too much knowledge of the topic. There is nothing unusual about that, nor is the precision that Tour complained about not being there needed. That is needed in peer reviewed articles and it was in those articles.



I am sorry, but you screwed the pooch yourself here. That video is a very serious response to Tour's lies. You made the error of relying on a lying source (the Discovery Institute) that went to a self admitted liar (Tour) to defend his lies. This "one incident" is not questionable. It is not minor. Tour actually apologized for his lies about Szostak but he has not apologized for his lies, and even though he lied when he called Szostak a liar and admitted it and apologized for it, he still has not had the Discovery Institute take down his video where he does lie. That shows that his apology was mealy mouthed at best.

Please! You just don’t want to even consider reasoning on anything.
Szostak himself said the drawing was inaccurate, and you’re ignoring it.
Tour explained it well.

I’m done. This is not the thread for this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I’m done. This is not the thread for this.

It really is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please! You just don’t want to even consider reasoning on anything.
Szostak himself said the drawing was inaccurate, and you’re ignoring it.
Tour explained it well.

I’m done. This is not the thread for this.

What are you talking about? Szostak made no such c!aim. You relied upon a self admitted liar for that. All of your claims were refuted. Now you are being incredibly dishonest. You were the one that started this conversation. You were given an example of a creationist that lied. And as I proved, not only did he lie during his attack on Szostak, he lied in his defense.

Why can't you admit how you failed? You don't go to the liar to defend his lies, you to to.an independent source. He lied big time about the primary literature claim, he lied about simple sugars, he clear!y lied twice about cyanide derivatives. An honest person would have admitted this.

And he also lied about what Szostak said to him. How do I know? Because Hurd did not trust his claims either:

Stones and Bones: Prof. James Tour and the Disco’Tutes: Still Lying, Part 3.

'Szostak to Hurd (May 17, 2019), “What I did was to explain the use of the simplified diagrams as a means of communicating the chemistry to a general audience (and note, even chemists by convention draw molecular structures without showing most hydrogen atoms). At the time he appeared to have no problem accepting this explanation, but I guess it did not stick.” '

I had not read that until after my post, but I am rather proud that I understood Hurd's video so well. He made practically the same arguments that I did, except for contacting Szostak and seeing exactly what he did say.

You need to realize that you cannot go to a liar to defend his lies.