Most of what you posted is either ignorant of what you are talking about or a lot of hand waving. Neither is credible.
Here are just a few points about what you posted.
1. You have obviously never read Behe's Black Box. That is clear. I assume you cut and pasted someone else's rather ignorant critique. If you ever do read it and wish to discuss it, let me know. I have my copy here, and I have read it.
2. No one, but NO ONE is arguing variation. The argument is that variation is limited and will not move an organism outside of its kind, which, if you like, you may consider the taxonomic family.
3. The nylon-eating variation will not get you anywhere for reasons I specifically mentioned: it involves a loss of specificity and they die in the wild population.
4. Natural selection happens when part of a population dies off under environmental pressure, or simply cannot breed. The surviving sub-population has then lost whatever variants may have been confined to the part of the population that died off. This results, after a few times, in a fitness peak from which there is no known way down and the final result is what we call an 'endangered species.' This is a simple matter of standard population genetics.
5. Genesis is certainly not a myth and is rather a series of eyewitness accounts. In Genesis 1:9 we find that there was one supercontinent in the beginning. It took science awhile to catch up with this. In Genesis 1:14, we are told to use the sun, moon, and stars as our timekeepers. We do. Genesis 1 presents itself as actual history. It bears none of the grammatical markers or other indications of being a myth or allegory or even poetic. Take it or leave it according to what it claims to be, but don't try to reclassify it to suit your own preconceptions.
6. Your parallel to the Ford is incredibly faulty, for each Ford model was designed, presumably intelligently.
7. Incredibly, you wrote: No, it doesn't. These variants are organisms in their own right, an original common ancestor for all life would not be perfect, it would simply be an organism. I had to stare at that twice before believing what I was seeing. I don't think you know what 'organism' means! Of course every variant is an organism in its own right. An organism is a living thing, an individual living thing! What every variant is NOT is something which departs from the kind (use 'family' if you like) classification of the population it belongs to.
8. Your response to genetic load was an ignorant one. Any hospital anywhere can tell you that there is an increase in birth defects being seen. Some are quirks, but most are showing up as inherited. Several years ago National Geographic had a full page spread for a very short list of known genetic causes of various diseases and deformities. This is part of our genetic load and what medicine is fighting against consistently.
9. The cichlids are still cichlids and we call them different species due to their mating cues. Dogs and horses, however, which are MUCH more different from various other dogs and horses than any cichlids are from each other, use smell for mating cues, and thus all dogs and horses are considered basically the same taxonomically. In other words, we are defining species because of different mating cues, not because of morphologic or genetic differences. This is where it gets silly....
10. Allele frequency changes can be seen in different generations of the same human family. This does not make any of them less human, and you will not find anyone who says that this shows humans are evolving. In other words, the allele frequency definition of evolution is completely false and depends for its acceptance on the ignorance of not only the general population but of those in all sciences but genetics! It's a fancy phrase that means absolutely nothing evolutionarily!
11. Ad hominem is not calling your horse and buggy illustration nonsense unless you are either a horse or a buggy. However calling me a liar, which you did repeatedly IS ad hominem and is not allowed on this board. Any more and your posts will be erased in full. I am quite sure you will then holler that because your arguments could not be answered that you were not allowed to talk or some such rubbish. However the time I have taken with this post and others is enough to prove you wrong if anyone wants to check the truth.
12, No scientific method has to give predictions. ID is presenting a known scientific method to use when looking at natural things. You need to learn a little more about science, methinks.
13. Your idea about Wells' referencing of scholastic journals to show his point is a far cry from 'quote mining.' You evidently are not aware of what scholarly referencing is. You can see it in any peer reviewed journal. It is the footnotes in the body of the text which point you down to the reference in the reference section where the author got his information. This is about as far from quote mining as you are from Genesis!
14, You are evidently not aware of Dawkins' references to creationists:
You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.
-- Richard Dawkins, in Lanny Swerdlow, "My Sort Interview with Richard Dawkins" (Portland, Oregon, 1996)
It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).-- Richard Dawkins, quoted from Josh Gilder, a creationist, in his critical review, "PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science" (September, 2001)
15. I have not lied about anything I have written here and I resent your statement that I have. You have disobeyed the rules for posting on this board and if you do so again -- especially in such a flagrent manner -- I will ask the webmaster to ban you. This is a place for discussion, not for calling people liars.
I may be ignorant in a lot of areas, and I know from what you have said that you are. But I, for one, am not a liar.