Life is most likely intelligently designed

Con said our cells don't compute but that's not what I said. I said WE are computers and this is self-evident; we compute stuff all the time. I'm sure you computed mathematical formulas in high school, for instance. Con's argument that individual cells don't compute is a red herring. I said there's a dichotomy: either life was designed intelligently or came about randomly. Absurdly, Con tries to nullify this dichotomy by positing a supposed third option: non-random. LOL. This isn't identifying a third option, this is dodging the question of “what is the 3rd option?” Using Con's logic, I could resolve the dichotomy between good and evil by positing a “non-good” option... lolwut? Con's opting for a “non-random” origin of life could be viewed as a concession, since “intelligent design” certainly falls under this umbrella of “non-random.” Con says there is nothing in the laws of physics that prevent all the air molecules in a room from clustering into a corner and leaving you to suffocate, but obviously Con has forgotten the Laws of Thermodynamics which say that entropy in a closed system increases over time, not decreases. All the air molecules clustering together in a corner would violate the Laws of Thermodynamics because this would represent a reduction in entropy. Con says when you multiply lots of random processes together you get general order but this is laughable. Show me an instance where you multiply a bunch of random processes together and get “general order.” And then, you can make this argument actually relevant to the topic at hand by showing how random processes can create walking, talking computers. I don't know why Con is bringing up the Laws of Thermodynamics when it contradicts his earlier argument. Life increases the entropy of a system? What system? How? I'm pretty sure the Great Pyramids are not an example of life increasing entropy, but decreasing entropy. Con's argument that life comes about from other life is disingenuous since he knows I'm not denying we were born to our parents, but that the first biological life was intelligently designed and didn't sprout out of the earth randomly. Con flaunts his example of a possible runaway reaction but I'm not sure why since runaway reactions cause tumors and cancers in existing life; they don't create life... not sure where he's going with this. Interestingly Con denies I made the positive case for ID which I posted in my first argument: computers require intelligence to be programmed. Con said, “This is very thermodynamically favourable, and any process that can accomplish these steps would very quickly become established and adaptive, and very conceivably lead to live as we know it today.” Yeah uhm no. We can't even comprehend how the simplest cell works yet you think this simple chemical reaction suggests people can evolve randomly from inert matter? Con says intelligent design violates Occam's Razor but I guess he's fine with violating the Laws of Thermodynamics which effectively state that the entropy of the universe (a closed system from what we can see) increases, and the evolution of life would require a reduction in the entropy. If Con can violate the laws of physics to make his case then I'm afraid I'm going to have to pull out my magic wand and challenge Con to a duel!