the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.

That may not be true. Bacteria also have sex, but I am not sure when it was supposed to have evolved: Bacteria can swap DNA between very distantly related species, even between Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria.

Oh the irony. The statement above was quickly followed by this statement: In one moment you claim that no one can know the objectives of the designer, and then you turn around and propose what objectives the designer has. Go figure.

That seems to be a rather large and unevidenced assumption.

You would first need to provide evidence that there is a God and that this God had anything to do life on Earth.

That is also a rather large and unevidenced assertion.

Ultimately, the argument we are using is that if the evidence is consistent with natural processes, then we conclude that natural processes did it. We observe that natural processes (e.g. natural selection and random mutation) produce matching molecular and morphological phylogenies in living species. We then find that larger species groups also fall into these same phylogenies, which means that the evidence is consistent with natural processes.Now, you could argue that some tricksy deity just made everything look like it occurred through natural processes, but what would be the point? You might as well argue that since God can plant DNA and fingerprints at crime scenes that we can't use forensic science in courts. As soon as the physical evidence doesn't matter, then the conversation is over.

Actually, the whole point is for ID/creationists to once again demonstrate that ID/creationism is a dogmatic religious belief that can never be falsified by any evidence, no matter what that evidence is. The claims that we can't "judge design" just further support that conclusion. When you make ID/creationism unfalsifiable, as you have done, then you have ceased asking questions and are refusing to refine the answer.

When has a dogmatic belief ever been a valid approach to any question? When you start with the answer, why even ask the question?

We were told that we couldn't judge what the designer would or wouldn't do, or why. Therefore, a trickster deity is on the table.

If species were separately designed then we wouldn't expect to see a nested hierarchy since there is no reason that a designer would force its designs into a nested hierarchy. The only reason we would expect to see a nested hierarchy is if species evolved from a common ancestor. As described above, yes. If we suddenly saw nearly all species suddenly appear in the fossil record just 10,000 years ago, then I think we could conclude that there is a high probability that we are in a designed system of life. If I may make a suggestion, your first step should be to ask yourself what it would take to prove ID/creationism wrong. That is what any good scientist would do. What would it take to disprove ID/creationism when it comes to the question of the origin of species?From what I have seen so far, you seem to have taken the position that a designer can do anything and produce every possible observation. If that is the case, then I don't see how your belief can be examined.