What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

1. It's not like life can just form under any conditions as the puddle analogy. You know that, and I'm disappointed that a person who knows biology can make that statement. 
2. ID is based on the evidence of biology. Also how is evolution falsifiable? And no, you again are describing experimental science, which will never be able to describe the past. You should look up about how scientists compare competing hypothesis about the remote past where experiments cannot reach. Not all science is empirical as you would like to believe, but you know that. The tough thing is to make sure that you do not mix the unempirical areas with the empirical. 
3. And yes the similar genome could be interpreted as common ancestry, or it could be interpreted as a designer using a similar framework to make multiple different designs. All computer codes use binary code. Similar programs have more similar codes. They were still designed.

1. I didn't try to suggest life could exist under any conditions. I am saying that you are concluding intent from result, when it may not be so and you know it. "Looks designed" and "is designed" are different things. If the puddle had been just 1mm higher, it would have been a different "image" to someone looking at it. That it happens to resemble Elvis does not mean it was made to look like Elvis. Yes, my example is many orders of magnitude simpler than the phenomena you are describing... yet my analogy holds.

2. One of the several dozen easy ways evolution would be falsifiable is when the PCR was invented in the mid-80s, and then faster scanning equipment and computers began to come out, so that we could sequence a great many species, at least in localized/targeted regions or at medium clarity. The ToE predicts that we will find inherited gene markers from species which descended and diverged from the same gene pool. It made comparisons based on physical factors, such as fossils, bones, and comparative anatomy of living species, and laid out a tree of life of our ancestry. If it had been false, the DNA "trees of inheritance" would not have been able to be constructed, since it would just be a jumble of similar parts, and not clear patterns of inherited marker-sections. When we looked at those heritable markers, the same types used for paternity tests and to identify criminals at crime scenes, we found that we are indeed of the Great Ape family and closely related to chimpanzees despite the many inversions and other modifications of the basic pattern prior to the divergence.

3. As the paper said, we have been changing rather rapidly under evolutionary pressures, as have they. There is no need for these markers to give a false impression of shared gene-pools with similar-looking animal types, unless this Deity of yours is malevolent or the Trickster, Loki. Even Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project went to great lengths to explain why those markers mean we're descended from the same grandparents as chimps, and why they're not just "similar systems". And he's an Evangelical Christian!