Are you kidding? Those links just list uses of the word "lie" or "untrue" or whatever on TrueOrigin.org. The first one for "lie" is an article accusing the NY Times of lying. And the first one for "untrue" is an article sent to the Australian magazine The Skeptic that contains the statement "This is untrue." I don't have time to look through every use of the word to find one that fits your description.
You promised "exposed blatant lies." Can you find me one, or not?
[[I don’t have time to look through every use of the word to find one that fits your description.]]
You asked for some I gave them to you- Johnathan exposes folks from TO and from other sites in many of htose links- either look them up or not- whatever- As well if you read through most of his articles, they expoise the half-truths, the sins of ommissions committed by TO and PA and other sites as well- His site is full of such- knock yourself out
[[You promised “exposed blatant lies.” Can you find me one, or not?]]
Can you do your own research or not? I did a great deal of leads for you already- that’s enough- My statement stands whether you check it out or not
I have spent a great deal of time on wallace’s (Tim- not Jonathan- made a mistake) site and it has become clear to me that Talkorigins commits the sins of ommissions hwen making hteir case for Macroevoltuion. Tim has a great many articles exposing htese intentional cover-ups, which are lies, and he exposes their negligatory articles for what they are. While he may be wrong on some moot points from time to time- He has shown a great deal more integrity that TO or PA in dealing with his mistakes in a timely and honest manner, and it is clear to anyone who takes the itme to read through his articles that TO and PA and other sites indulge in and inflate just so stories trying to make hteir case for Macroevolution. The deceit is blatant, and intentional, and it is meant ot mislead and deceive, as you will soon discover if you decide to read throguh the many articles that address exactly what I’ve said they address. The ‘differences aren’t just simple ‘differences of opinion’ aws you claim, the artivcles on those site are seriously negligent in telling hte whole truth becuase the whole truth refutes what they are claiming and they know it, and they don’t want you or anyone else knowing it- this is deciet when you itnentionally cover up serious problems and opposing evidences. Noe, you can either beleive what I am telling you, trust what I am saying, or you can refuse to look any furhter- I don’t really care one way or the other- I’ve doen my part, and I’ve played this game far too long- giving link after link after link after demand after demand after demand only to have the facts ignored, brushed aside, and pretended that they aren’t as serious as they really are- only to have folks turn right around and hold soemthign like AIG’s mistakes up as though they rise to the levels of intentional deceits on site liek TO and PA, and if you wish to continue engaging in this type of game- you’re on your own- but the comparisons between what AIG had happen to them and what TA intentionally does time and time again don’t even compare integrity wise!