Dear Dan,

I am astonished and taken back. I was referring to our friend's Rusty's lab stories as a technician and afterwards. When I did say you are lying?

Rusty is a specialist in genetics, it seems: I have no reason to doubt his personal experiences.

Dear David f.

Isiah 45.7:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (KJV)

An interesting citation, David. I was totally unaware of this verse.

I guess most mythologies must account for "good" and "evil". Have you read Lawrence Kolhberg's work on morality? I feel the OT God in particular would score quite lowly.

Dear OUG and Dan,

Anything referring to the Coventant in Jesus' lifetime would more likely refer to Judaism, not Christianity, which evolved from c.250-325 CE and afterwards.

One could argue that Law of Moses was a burden and gave rise to the wish for a replacement covenant, i.e.,one based on spirituality; perhaps, as the promise of the Kingdom of Heaven. Herein, if there was a historical Jesus any suicidal behaviour would likely be addressing this issue or a similar Jewish issue: Not Christianity.

The related possibility being he didn't mean to be crucified. Things just got out of hand. Being a highly vocal 2IC of the House of David, with all the Jewish factions, under Roman occupation would have been dangerous, if one pushed the envelope too far.

If Pilate throught that Jesus' followers were a new religious cult, there is a fair chance all disciples would have been crucified too. The Roman's of the period did not like the exclusivity of the Jewish faith, but respected its antiquity. Breaking from the mother religion before the Fall of the Temple, would have placed any alleged Christianity in Roman's cross-hairs, especially if they were montheists (atheists to the Romans).

Before Constantine, the various Gospels around, were divided on the issue of Jesus' divinity. We are lucky to have some of the alternative Gospels survive, given efforts in fourth century to have them destroyed

Dear Dan and Rusty,

Carl Sagan on evolution:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522726029201501667#

Hello again Rusty,

Please note, that fundalmentist Websites often mislead their followers. I just did a search and found several showing the Sagan quote out of context. The messager may not always be the author.

Aware of that, Oliver,

Dan claims to have academic qualifications in philosophy, and regards my higher degrees as comparable.

He is quite capable of the few hours of library work it would take to establish the dodginess of creationist quote-mining. Don't take *my* word for it, I *insist*.

When I quote from academic papers and books, it is the author's clear intent rather than a conspiracy theory that I transmit. He is quite capable of finding and reading and understanding Sagan's book. If he has not, he has taken it upon himself to answer for the quote mining, based on the manner in which he used the quote.

Rusty

I like this manipulative tactic Dan employs occasionally in order to make someone feel as though they need to choose between him and his adversary. It reminds me of my primary school years...

“You (Oliver) support Rusty’s comments. You encourage him to ‘keep it up’.

Do you support Rusty’s comments accusing me of being a liar?

...Where do you stand?” - Dan S de Merengue
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496&page=0#181438)

Now, if this was the only occasion Dan had used this tactic I wouldn’t think much of it, but it’s not...

“Dear George,
I’m trying to interpret what you were saying.

Were you agreeing with Severin that someone was making an idiot of themselves?

Do you agree with Severin and Rusty that descending to such schoolyard language is useful, and contributes beneficially to this debate?” - Dan S de Merengue
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496&page=0#179519)

But the all-time classic was this...

“Dear George,
Thanks for your question, and I would love to respond...

...Before I answer your question, could I ask you a question? What do you think of AJ’s tactics over the last little while, perhaps his last few posts?

Best wishes, - Dan S de Merengue
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292&page=0#152371)

In other words: “I’ll only tell you if you make AJ look bad.”

The “Best wishes” bit at the end was cute too. Yes, George received a real buttering-up there, but he refused to take the bait; answering very diplomatically. Unfortunately though, in doing so, it turned out that George forfeited any answer to his question.

By the way, those “tactics” of mine that Dan mentioned was my referring to him and his arguments as “dishonest” and then demonstrating why that was the case.

Although I probably wouldn't word it quite so harshly, I can certainly understand where Rusty is coming from and agree 100%.

As with organisations such as the Discovery Institute, I believe Dan is pushing a more sinister agenda. I don’t believe he is sincere as most here on OLO do. Although, I used to...

“Dan,

Before I continue, I want to make it very clear to you that in no way do I view you as an inherently dishonest person ... The dishonesty in your arguments comes from what you read on the intentionally misleading websites such as www.creationontheweb.com. It is the scientists on these kinds of websites who are the real “false prophets”.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7353&page=0#118941)

But the more I got to know him, the more I realised he was more like one of the 'authors' than just a 'messenger' - to borrow Oliver's terminology...

“Dan, I used to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were just a naïve Christian who was the victim of the deceitfulness of Creationists. But now you're acting more like a politician trying to cover-up his colleague's scandals.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121938)

He even ‘quote mined’ me at one stage; showing that he didn’t just fall for the tricks, but employed them himself...

Quote of the Month,

“As I’ve said before, it would be a real tragedy if someone were to read Dan’s posts and think he actually had a point.”

AJ Philips (27/9/09)" - Dan S de Merengue
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#152257)

Dear Oliver,
I asked whether you support Rusty’s comments accusing me of being a liar.

Rusty has made some bizarre allegations. I’d like to deal with those shortly. But as someone who has supported his posts, I want to hear what you have to say.

I am happy for anyone or everyone to disagree with some, most, or all of my points. But if the people I converse with do not believe that I put forward my discussion in good faith, then there is no avenue to continue. The issue is one of personal integrity.

My conscience is clear. But so that we can clear the air and move on, could you answer plainly: As one who has supported Rusty’s posts, do you call me a liar?