However, most deals will still simply be random patterns of cards, and non-random patterns like 4 Aces, or a sequence like Jack, Queen, King, and Ace are vastly fewer in number compared to all the possible random combinations. And if a dealer dealt enough of them in a row, or even one that is lengthy enough by itself, then we would interpret this a sign of intelligent design, (similar to how SETI looks for such non-random patterns in radio-signals, to discern design).
Can you tell me what it is that would make 4 aces a non-random pattern? Or J Q K A, for that matter? Why are those any different than any other "random" set of 4 cards? Keep in mind what "random" means as it relates to statistics.
And no, "we" would not necesserily interpret that as a sign of intelligent design. It would be interpreted ONLY as a highly improbable event,the cause of which would still be in question unless we had good reason to attribute it to intelligence. The SETI example doesn't lend much help to the case, BTW. As SETI does not look for non-random, meaningful signals. They look for one thing: artificiality, which does not need to be a non-random pattern, complex, or meaningful. In fact, as far as they're concerned, the simpler the better. It's an accepted fact among scientists that "information", order, and complexity are not sufficient to point to non-natural causes. You should really look into what the good folks at SETI themselves think of the intelligent design proponents who hijack their science for psuedo-scientific goals.
bohm has sufficiently destroyed your second point. No need for me to re-hash. However I'll reiterate, you can't cite probabilities as support for your case when we have no way of determining what those probabilities are. Anyone who throws out "woowoo" big numbers in regards to the odds of life developing on it's own is just talking out of their ass.
ReMine shows that given even assuming the alleged evolutionary age of the earth, and generous assumptions on the number of trials available for such attempts, that such a non-random sequence will simply not occurr within even the lengthy hypothetical time frame.
No. That's complete bullsh!t. He can't show that at all. Remember, just because the odds of something occuring are, say, 1 in a million, that does not at all mean that it will take that many tries to see the event happen. There's nothing preventing that that occurence being the first in the series, or the tenth, or the 1,854th. You also disregard the innumerable number of trial runs that can all be running at the same time.
Oh, and just what is the "evolutionary age of the earth"? Evolution is dependant on an old earth, but not vise-versa. The age of the earth has nothing to do with evolution. The only place I could find that term in use is on fundamentalist anti-science websites.