[tacticalogic]

I haven’t seen many that do reject Macroevolution simply because “ID is proven because it cannot be disproven,” and “any competing theory is disprove because it has not been proven. “ Most reject it based on which proposal presents the most reasonable evidnece- they reject Macroevolution because it violates several scientific principles, and does so not insignificantly, but rather severely. Yes, some people don’t delve too deeply, and might say htose htigns you claim. howver, most people who have looked into the issues, and have even a basic understanding of hte issues, do not reject macroeovlution based on what you claim- Seems you’ve painted the whoel group with one broad brushstroke.

Do you see any who reject Macroevolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, but try to use flawed or just plain wrong scientific arguments to rationalize it?

[CottShop]

[[Do you see any who reject Macroevolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, but try to use flawed or just plain wrong scientific arguments to rationalize it?]]

are there websites that do this? Sure- but there are also great websites that mostly stick to hte facts and evidences- and even if they present opinion as well as the science, their opinion certainly doesn’t invalidate the facts and evidences- it’s the strengths of facts and evidences that present the case- scientists are, allowed to, ... gasp.... give opinions in addition to the science they present-