fine- I will- Here: http://trueorigin.org
The exposed blatant lies are numberous- and htese were no simple fallible gaffs- these are outright lies that are exposed
If you could point me to a specific lie that is exposed, I promise to go read it. I followed a few links, and most of them just argue against the Talk.origins conclusions without actually exposing any lies, or even accusing TO of lying.
I did find one that made an accusation of deception. There's a link that makes the case for a young moon, and it claims that a paper cited on Talk.O is deceptive because it bases its calculations on the premise of a single continent at the earth's pole. (Note: the paper doesn't say that ever actually happened--it's just a starting point for general calculations.) The True.O author claims that because the tidal bulges could sweep around the earth without obstruction, the calculations of the moon's recession that result are untrustworthy, and implies that the premise was chosen in order to get the old-moon results.
But the Talk.O post also cites other papers that "treat the oceanic tidal dissipation with fully mobile and arbitrary continents" or "with plate tectonics fully integrated into their models of Earth-moon tidal evolution." In other words, there are sources that do not depend on a single continent. But although the True.O author says he has possession of those other papers, he only addresses the first one. He doesn't give any hint of what the other two say, or address how having arbitrary continents might destroy his argument about nothing getting in the water's way.
So I ask you, which is more deceptive: an author that clearly says "we're going to base our calculations on a situation that probably never existed but will give us some numbers to start with," or an author that conceals information in his possession without giving any hint what it is?