"One would be that life is too complex to have come into existence by time, chance and random processes."
That's an assertion, not evidence.
"There is no way you could add information to the genetic machinery for increased complexity unless there was an intelligence designing and directing the adding of information."
Define "information" as you're using it here and show why it cannot be added.
"That leads to, well who is that intelligence then?"
It doesn't lead anywhere until you clear up the above points.
"From there you can point out that the Bible claims to be a message from that intelligence. Ok, then how do I know that the Bible is really from the creator? There are a number of lines of evidence one can consider."
I hope it's of substantially higher quality than your previous "evidence."
"Bible prophecy and its accurate fulfillment is strong evidence that the Bible is from that Creator."
Occam's Razor would suggest that you start with the assumption that they are self-fulfilling, misinterpretation, not prophecies to begin with or have not, in actuality, been fulfilled until such time as you can show evidence that any of those are not accurate descriptions. Superfluous entities such as deities should be removed until such time as they are the only reasonable option left.
"There are hundreds of prophecies already accurately fulfilled and many more ready to be fulfilled in the end times."
I'm not aware of any that were obviously prophecy and actually written prior to the events, are unambiguous and can only be interpreted to mean one thing and one thing only.
"The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has strong legal evidence that it truly happened."
You have no evidence, "legal" or otherwise, that your Christ existed as described in the Bible. Until you get some you really can't use this argument, now can you?
"The gospels are 4 eyewitness accounts of these events admissable in any court of law."
Any lawyer worth the title would have them tossed out as hearsay evidence given that you can't directly cross examine any of the authors. Not to mention that virtually all the experts in the field say that none of the Gospels were eyewitness accounts and were, at best, written decades--sometimes near a century--after the events they recount.
"There were over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ available also."
Who were they? What were their names? Their occupations? Where did they live? What did they see? Where did they see it? Where are their writings or, given the literacy rate of the time, their accounts written by historians of the time? Where is the evidence that they even existed to begin with?
Saying 500 anonymous people who may or may not have existed saw something isn't going to cut it when you're talking about something like a corpse coming back to life two thousand years ago.
"Secular historians recorded the fact of the existence of a man named Jesus Christ."
Which historians? What are their names and specific fields of specialty? What institutions are the affiliated with? What evidence did they use to come to such a conclusion? Where was the conclusion published?
"The dead sea scrolls attest to the accuracy of the manuscipts we now have. The writings of the early church fathers preserve virtually every verse in the Bible which affirms our current Bible."
The Dead Sea Scrolls may, or may not, do what you claim; I'm not terribly familiar with their content. At best they simply show that current texts match ancient ones, not that the ancient ones are true.
"There is a start."
It's not much of one without being able to answer the questions I've raised regarding your "evidence."