I will prove to you that God exists

[Sheldon]

The fine-tuning argument would imply that there exists a wide range of possible universes where an omnipotent and omniscient being could not cause life to appear...

Drew is asserting that, something that demonstrably has happened, life emerging, is impossible, using natural phenomena, though we know as an object fact, they exist and are possible and are causal in everything we understand about the universe thus far. 

While simultaneously asserting that the most plausible solution in his false dichotomy is the addition of a deity he can't demonstrate exists or is even possible did it, using forces he can't demonstrate are possible, and that have no explanatory powers whatsoever. 

More tellingly, one could replace his notion of deity in his mostly fallacious arguments, and insert any unfalsifiable idea, and the arguments lose nothing. How much credence should one attach to an argument that poor? 

Then, like so many religious apologists I have met over the years, he doesn't even know how the dictionary defines atheism, and doesn't appear to understand the difference between atheism and atheist, fallaciously conflating the former, with some claims that some of the latter may make. 

All in all this is very poor apologetics by any standard. 

He has misrepresented the scientific term fine tuning, which is a metaphor, as a literal term validating the supernatural, despite there being no scientific consensus for the latter, and the supernatural being unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific by definition.

The real irony is he has ignored all cogent, and rational objections, whilst falsely accusing anyone who refuses to be swayed by his subjective fallacious spiel, as biased, the irony is palpable. If a deity has been proved the way he is claiming it seems also to have entirely escaped, not just the entire scientific world, but every global news network, even the Catholic Herald has zero stories running saying fine tuning has proved a deity exists.

The comedy gold moment came when he cited a single book title, not one relevant quote mind, and triumphantly announced the author was a "scientists" and an atheist. When asked how he thinks this book or author supports his position, yet is an atheist of course, he was and is reticent, perhaps understandably. 

He has swept passed almost all objections to his spiel, using the the Gish gallop tactic, it's never pretty to watch of course, but can be quite funny to see the author become ever more frustrated, and project their subjective bias onto everyone else, as they resort more and more to simple repetition of their claims, like a demented preacher, screaming from a pulpit, then sulking and telling us we "have no real interest in debate". One almost feels a pang of pity for someone so ill-informed, but the remember he could disavow himself of most of his erroneous and fallacious claims in a few minutes using Google.