[[But the thing about the Web is that you can go back and correct errors when you find out about them. Sarfati has had ample opportunity to correct his out-of-date statement (I’m being charitable here), and in fact has gone in and added a reference to an addendum on another page written in 2002. But for some reason he hasn’t bothered to change the text of what he originally wrote to reflect what he should now know.]]
It is customary on the web to keep the written material while posting updates or corrections- why? Because to change the material after the fact would be immediately pounced upon by vultures looking for an easy meal- claiming that hte person was ‘tryign to cover’ their tracks by deleting material that they later learned turned out not to be quite true.
[[The original material is still there, uncorrected, and it’s still being quoted on other creationist sites as fact. How dishonest do you have to be before “liar” is an accurate description?]]
I don’t know about ‘other sites’ but dread’s implied accusation was that AIG was being dishonest, and this turns out not to be the truth. His implied accusation was also that AIG couldn’t be ‘trusted’ and that all the material is, in his words, “shi+’ because evidently, in his mind, a couple of printed articles were later discovered to contain errors, and he was implying that Serfati intentionally lied- and htis turns out not to be the truth either.
As for ‘how much’ you tell me? I see a LOT of folks on here citing Talkorigins, panda’s thumb and other such sites which have been more than sufficiently shown to contain actual flat out lies and blatant misrepresentations, yet apparently, that’s just fine if the site contains some actual factual science? Double standards here? Why I think it is my dear sir- To boot- AIG wasn’t itnentionally doing anything like TO and PAT and other sites do.
[[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?]]
I’ll tell you what is more deceptive- those hwo would attempt to assign an intent to someone without knowing what the other papers held in the first place- He’s ‘concealing’? Really? and you know htis how? If you want to accuse him of something- why not ask him directly- accuse him directly instead of behind his back? He’s always been forthright, honest and open to inquirey as far as I nkow
And so why hasn't he? Rather than address the issue (much less post a correction) himself, he refers readers to another page, whose author doesn't address it either.