What are you on about BADecker? You point me to an article about ID and origin of life, primarly, Which i actually says has Lots of good points, and is overall a very good article - and you accuse me of trying to discredit it!! Do me the courtesy of Reading before you answer. Thank you.
Its not me Who has come up with a theory for ID, you pointed me to ID, remember! You dont belive in evolution, fair Enough. But just because evolution is not true acording to you, does not make ID true default. It does not work that Way, cant be one thing, must be the other. Just because i cant Walk on water does not make it imposdible for all others. One just needs to figure out that you need to frezz it, then you Can. Its called lack of knowlage.
You fiercely resist evolution, yet accept ID! A consept with zero proof What so ever. How come? Where did your need for 100% proof go Here?
Its not me Who has come up with a theory for ID, you pointed me to ID, remember! You dont belive in evolution, fair Enough. But just because evolution is not true acording to you, does not make ID true default. It does not work that Way, cant be one thing, must be the other. Just because i cant Walk on water does not make it imposdible for all others. One just needs to figure out that you need to frezz it, then you Can. Its called lack of knowlage.
You fiercely resist evolution, yet accept ID! A consept with zero proof What so ever. How come? Where did your need for 100% proof go Here?
Now it is you who didn't read the article. The article wasn't about ID even though it had some talk about ID in it.
The article is about how evolution doesn't have any solid proof behind it. It is about that most of evolution is just talk so that lay people have faith in evolution. It has to do with the fact that when scientific evolutionists get right down to the science of evolution, they realize that there is essentially nothing there, and that evolution should be banned as a scientific theory.
The article only talks about ID because ID is just about the only alternative to evolution that we can come up with. Since evolution has not even one shred of proof, but only has a bunch of talk that there is proof, the whole idea of evolution falls into the same class as religion. But ID is evident all around us.
Did you miss the part about the author himself:
Quote from: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/fred-reed/signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design/
(For what it is worth, I am myself a complete agnostic. Faith and atheism both seem to me categorical beliefs in something one doesn’t know. ID certainly provides no support for the existence of a loving Sunday School god, given that in almost all places and all times most people have lived in misery and died in agony.)
Then he goes on to say:
Quote from: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/fred-reed/signature-in-the-cell-and-intelligent-design/
To me, though, things look designed. By what, I don’t know.
The whole idea of evolution has to do with random mutations. Random mutations are as far from design as you can get. But our experience of design - people making machines - takes things that don't have so much order in them, and make it into more order. It's called design. Random mutation is disorder, not more order. Random mutation is not design, but the opposite of design.
Everything operates in an orderly fashion. The complexity of order in the universe is extremely great. So, the order is great. The ID is great. That's just the opposite of random mutation. Somebody talked you into believing that randomness and mutation have to do with intelligent design, because the universe is orderly, like it was designed. You have a backwards, self-contradictory religion going for yourself in evolution.
Evolution is a hoax.
''The whole idea of evolution has to do with random mutations'' Another classic lie by badecker.
''Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment. ''
Yet, many websites and books talk about the random mutations of evolution. You can find some of them if you Google "evolution random mutation."
If the evolution process doesn't work by random mutations, then it is guided - which it is by cause and effect - by someone or something that is thousands of times smarter than our smartest scientists or groups of scientists. How can evolution be smarter than scientists? Scientists have yet to figure out how to create their first life from scratch. But, something made nature to have life on Earth in countless forms and countless numbers of procreations.
We don't have a hint of a method that describes this process in evolution theory. Basically all evolution theory says is that it happened. It would be a lot easier and more accurate to say that there is an All-knowing and All-powerful Creator that designed and made all of nature, than to think that evolution in any form we can come up with, could make nature.
Evolution is a hoax. And thank you for helping to show this.
Any website about anything might have the words random in it, we use it all the time. Poker is random, a lot of luck is involved, wouldn't you say? Science hasn't proved that everything is guided or has a cause.
..I suppose you told Jesus too you little snitch 
..
..