What are you suggesting? That a site heavy in opinion can’t supply relevent scientific facts and evidences along with hte opinion? IF those type sites present somethign scientifically relevent, I don’t see any reason why those sectiosn shoukldn’t be used- do you?
Follow that argument back to the original question:
[[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?]]
Asked if any proponents of ID are doing this, you reply that there are indeed some "websites" that do it. Asked to clarify whether that's inteded to be an include some of the arguments being presented here, you answer a different question - whether you think personal opinion is allowable if they're also providing "something scientifically relevant", and proceed from there.
If it's not an intentional attempt to frustrate a reasonable debate on the issue, it's doing a good job of looking like one.
that actually wans’t hte original point I was addressing- you claimed your objection to ID was that websites (I’m assuming you were lunmping all websites on ID into one single argument) on ID included opinions that you felt were unscientific or not proven (I assume you had in miund sites liek IRC, DI, AIG, as they are the ones most commonly, associated with hte ID movement- I pointed out htere are many great sites on ID that limit hteir personal opinions and present mostly evidence)
Do some sites delve heavily into opinion and generalized blanket statements? Sure- BUT, do they ALSO present some scientifically relevent material as well? Absolutely. Are htere sites that are nothign but fluff opinion and no science? I suppose, but I’ve not come across them- most sites that I’ve investigated over hte years do tend to offer significant scientific material- some better htan others- and yes, a lot do offer opinion that goes beyond hte sciecne, but which are usually NOT unreasonable opinions given the facts of hte case- however, I do prefer sites that stick mostly to the evidneces myself. Trueorigin.org is a site I like because it tackles the scientific issues scientifically and reasonably and has little i nthe way of opinion on most issues- IRC tends to state opinion more readily- however, that does not mean every article is devoid of scientific merrit- some are quite detailed scientifically- and I’m certainly not put off by opinions as I said, it’s quite easy to seperate opinion from the evidences.
Now- your next point was that htere may be sites which use flawed science, or just plain wrong- I have run across very few of htese sites, and hwen I find a site is consistently wrong, then I avoid those sites- However, if your objection to ID is based o nthe fact that soem sites used flawed, or outright wrong scientific conclusions or evidence to support an artgument, then you certainly MUST write off sites liek Talkorigins, Darwin central, Dawkins site, on and on it goes, because they knowingly cite thigns that are contradictory to the actual evidence- Trueorigins.org is a site that was set up to scientifically refute the deceit at talkorigins, and htye have exposed the blatant outright lies of talkorigins many many many times, yet folks liek yourself, often cite from that site and others like it and think nothign of it, and apparently you don’t object to their tactics? Now, does that mean everythign talkorigins posts is deceitful and wrong? Certainly not- there ARE soem scientifically valid arguments presented there, and I certainly don’t write off the whoel site just because they state opinion and happen ot be wrong a majority of hte time- they DO present some stuff which is credible, and if so, and if relevent to my arguments here or elsewhere, I’ll use htem as a source- that certainyl wouldn’t mean I endorse them where they are wrong though.
Anyway- this discussion is goign nowhere really- I just find it odd that you object to ID because a few sites might be wrong here and there, while right on other scientific issues and discussions, and will accept sites like Talkorigins which have been proven wrong time and time again, without any apparent ‘objection’