The "fine-tuning" argument is NOT a good argument

It would seem that I unfortunately find myself arguing against a troll. The argument that he presented is an argument from design, which is not the same as the fine-tuning argument. Nonetheless, I will address his points one by one."P1: DNA is a complex thing." Granted, although complexity is a somewhat subjective qualification."P2: This complex thing is either due to nature, randomness, design, chance, or Hitler." Randomness and chance are the same thing. I accept the options of nature (which could include chance) and design (which could technically also include chance). I won't even go into the "Hitler" option."P3: It is probably not due to nature, randomness or chance." We will se how my opponent defends this assertion."P4: Therefore, this complex thing was due to design and Hitler." That should be C1 by the way. "P5: Hitler is god." ..."C: DNA was designed by Hitler." I will assume that Hitler means God, in which case I am eager to see how my opponent defends this."C2: Dna was designed by god." So C was useless basically."C3: God exists." Technically, without the premisse "DNA exists" this does not follow, but I will let it slide."Ok, obviously DNA is a complex thing. If dna wasn't complex, then I would have passed biology with an A. But sinceI failed biology, it follows logically by the modus ponens form of arguments (I think that's what William Lane Craig called it) that dna is a complex thing." No it does not follow, it is also possible that my opponent is an idiot. My hypothesis has the merit of being supported by evidence which the audience can find throughout this debate."Now, by the logical law of four possibilities and a Hitler" Yes, that famous law. "it follows that the only explanations of this design are nature, randomness, design, chance, or Hitler." So my opponent KNEW that this was an argument from design? How frustrating."Why can't it be due to nature? Well, let's took a look at the nature around us. Have you ever seen a deer create DNA? Obviously they can't. Deers are made up of DNA and they never cause DNA." So the argument is that since deers can not create DNA, it follows that nature can not create DNA? This is a non-sequitur and a fallacy of composition. Not only that, but the fact that we have not SEEN it happen is the proof that it can't? Argument from ignorance."Indeed, this would require some bizarre form of quantum mechanical retrocausality, which is refuted by the Jesus Interpretation as set out by the physicist Malcom Malum (1)." *Facepalm*"it can't be due to randomness because if I get a deck of cards, put them in a box, and shake them around, I never get DNA. The complexity of DNA cannot be due to chance because if I allow one side of a die to represent a DNA nucleotide, and I roll a million dice, then there is only a .1 out of six hundred trillion chance that I would roll a nucleotide sequence that codes for a protein. These odds are about as high as the chance that RationalThinker will stop smoking weed." *Double facepalm*"it follows that the coplexity is due to design and Hitler." Has my opponent ever SEEN Hitler create DNA? If not, then we have a case of special pleading."Hitler is god by definition." I need an other hand to facepalm. Is anyone willing to... give me a hand?"Therefore, god made DNA" ..."Therefore god exists." ... I await my opponent's response with apprehension.