What amazing depth of logic and reasoning.
Thanks for noticing.
[Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the "standard genetic code" or a close derivative thereof.]
Quite a risky prediction wouldn't you say?
Yes indeed, since there's nothing in an "intelligent design" scenario which would guarantee such an outcome -- the "designer" could well have decided to make a batch of life using a different "material", "encoding", or "encoding language".
Not all the programs I write are in C++, for example. I use different languages, and sometimes different operating systems entirely, for different tasks.
But that's still one of the "safer" predictions, of course. Funny you focussed on only that one to be snide about instead of all the others...
Meanwhile, the "creationist theory" doesn't make *any* falsifiable predictions. And when faced with a "this makes no sense from a design standpoint" issue (like endogenous retrovirus fragments in DNA that seem to only be explainable by common ancestry), they just shrug and say, "God chose to do it that way". That, of course, can (and is) used to ignore *any* uncomfortable finding which seems inconsistent with "design". Or more to the point, it's used as an excuse to make *anything* one could *possibly* find "fit" a "design" belief (note I don't say "theory", because a "theory" has to be predictive).
I'm glad you're so easily amused.
And exactly how does all your blather here affirm the Darwininian theory?