Doug Krueger has pointed out the following on many occasions, but Briney refuses to alter this argument:
Premise 4 asserts that cells originated supernaturally. But the proving the presence of a supernatural being is the goal of the argument. That is, in order for this argument to prove that a supernatural being exists, it relies on the fact that a supernatural being exists. It is a circular argument and is logically invalid.

Briney also fails to clarify what is meant by "complex meaningful code." This argument leaves him with the burden of proof both that "complex meaningful codes" (whatever they might be) in signals are products of intelligent design, and that DNA is a complex meaningful code. There is no explanation for these points.

A perusal of Briney's website turned up the following statement made by Briney:

Regarding snowflake formation

The formation of crystals is thermodynamically efficient as energy is reduced in the system (lowering temperature of water to freezing point). The formation of a crystal increases in complexity, but there is no increase in entropy or violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Here Briney acknowledges that a decrease in energy can lead to an increase in complexity without violating the second law of thermodynamics. So why, in his inflammatory questioning, does he seem to state that an increase in complexity with decreasing free energy is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics?

Briney also asserts that the situation involves no increase in entropy as the temperature of the water is decreasing. However, Briney is mistaken: water remains a liquid as its temperature cools to 0°C. Only after losing an additional amount of energy (the enthalpy of fusion) without a change in temperature does the water become ice. If Briney is using the reasoning that "the temperature decreases as ice forms," he is simply wrong.

This shows us that we need to be wary of Briney's alleged understanding of thermodynamics. Again, he says that snowflake formation (an increase in complexity) doesn't result in an increase in entropy.
For a phase change of a system at constant temperature and pressure (where G is Gibbs' free energy, H is enthalpy, S is entropy, T is temperature, and q is heat transfer),

DG = DH - TDS

so DG/T = DH/T - DS

and -DG/T = -DH/T + DS

Because DH = q, -DH/T = -q/T.
Because DS is defined as q/T: -q/T= DS_surroundings. Substituting:

-DG/T = DS_surroundings + DS_(system)

-DG/T = DS_universe

-DG ~ DS_universe

Briney acknowledges that energy leaves the system (that is, there is a negative DG), but this final equation plainly shows that such a process necessarily involves an increase in entropy. Therefore, Briney has acknowledged that his "complexity" can arise from entropically increasing processes. That is, this shows that Briney is not justified in drawing a parallel between complexity and order (in Briney's sense of "order" being the opposite of entropy).

And he has the nerve to say this in the very same paragraph that he accuses Rennie of not understanding entropy!

Although we still don't know how Briney is defining "complexity," the conclusions drawn from this statement undercut any special status Briney seems to think "complexity" has. This is a serious blow Briney's premise that complexity somehow relates to intelligent design. We can be quite confident, however, that Briney doesn't understand thermodynamics as well as he seems to think he does.

While we're on the topic of entropy, I'd like to take this opportunity to mention something Briney said at his seminar. When asked to explain how he defined life, he said that for something to be living, it had to (1) have a membrane and (2) resist [increases in] entropy. (It was not clear if these are the only two requirements Briney considers, or if these are two of many. However, he did explicitly say that when something no longer resists entropy, it is no longer alive.)

Briney, with his Ph.D., should know that all biochemical processes are driven by the very same thermodynamics he doesn't understand. Certainly he dealt extensively with the DG of cellular processes, as I most certainly did in only undergraduate biology courses. He knows that processes only proceed if the changes result in a negative net DG.

But as I have shown above, DG is simply a consequence of entropy; namely, they are inversely related. If organisms resisted increases in entropy (DS < 0), then no processes would be spontaneous (DG > 0) and all biochemical reactions would cease.

So ultimately, what Briney is saying is: in order to be alive, you have to be dead.