The probability argument falls flat when it comes to explaining the past

I have to point out that this debate will not be about evolution/abiogenesis directly,this will be only about the topic of this debate,that is, the probability argument and why does it fail at explaining the past. (I have to add that i am not used to writing the letter "i" as capital when on it's own,and i beg the voters not to take that into account) For those of you who don't know about this argument,it is an argument employed by creationists in attempt to prove that the chances of life forming on it's own are so small that it couldn't have happened. First of all i have to quote this from a creationist website: "One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 (10^67:1) against even a small protein forming by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (an age 10 to 20 times greater than the supposed age of the Earth). [129] Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th (1:10^50) have a zero probability of ever happening ("and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt! "). " This argument is often used by iconic fundamentalist Christians like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. Now i shall start tearing this argument apart with an analogy. Imagine a dart board and you standing a distance away from it with an arrow in your hand. How many mathematical points are on the dart board? The answer: There is an infinite number of mathematical points. Let's say you choose one point on the dart board. What are the chances of the arrow hitting that exact point you thought of? Well since there are infinite number of mathematical points like that,so the chance of the arrow hitting that exact point is 1:infinity. So the actual chance of an arrow hitting that exact point is 0,right? Almost. Since there are infinite number of those mathematical points,we can say that the chance of an arrow hitting any mathematical point on the dartboard is 0. We throw an arrow and it hits a point. We know that it did because we see it hit the dartboard,so it must have hit some mathematical point. We know that a tip of an arrow is not a mathematical point,but it has an area,small,but not infinitesimal (we know this because every physical object has to have an area) Therefore the number of points it can hit is automatically finite,therefore the chance is greater than 0. If we pick an area now,we have a chance greater than 0 to hit it,we just need enough time and number of tries and we will eventually hit that area. [1] We have concluded that anything is possible in our universe as soon as it is given enough time. (This was mentioned by my fellow atheists a few times in the comments as well) Now for the claim of the website. The time the universe "supposedly" existed is 13.8 billion years (13.8^9). And the chances that the chemist calculated was 10^67. I agree,that number is much,much larger than the time the universe existed,so the chances are 0, right? One big NO. Unless infinity has a part in this creative math,chances are NOT 0. 13.8 billion years are quite enough for life to originate,even though having supposedly a chance of 1 in 10^67. We can admit that randomness plays a role in the creation of life,but chances are certainly not 0,therefore making them possible. This only is enough to make the probability argument collapse,however let's make things more extreme. I will play the same game. Did a raindrop ever fall on your nose? My nose was a target multiple times,needless to say. Let's ask a question: What are the chances of a raindrop hitting your nose? Could the chances be possibly lower than 10^67? Assuming that you are moving across the surface of earth. We find the volume of an average raindrop to be around 0.05 cm^3. [2] Raindrops are spherical at the start,so we can calculate the cross section of the drop using the volume formula for a sphere. We calculate it to be around 0.16 cm^2. Person's nose is on average around 150 cm off the ground when standing. Now for the location where the raindrop falls (which will also be a location where your nose is). Let's assume that the Earth is a perfect sphere,which means it's surface area is smaller than it actually is. The radius of the Earth is around 6.371 km (simple google search). Converted to centimeters it's around 637.100.000 cm. So the volume of the sphere where your nose could be is (637.100.000)^3 (if we ignore the 150 cm of height where your nose could be) x 4/3 pi. Which results in around 100 octillion (10^29) cm^2 . And finally if we include the chance of where you could be on the earth? Since the average area of a cross section is around 2 cm^2. [3] 2cm^2 / 100 octillion = 2e-29 (0.00000000000000000000000000002) Now the chance of your nose being at that practicular point on the sphere is about the same. Multiply 10^29 x 10^29 and we get 10^58 which is only a billion times smaller than than 10^67. And i also did not include the wind or anything that would disrupt the raindrop's trajectory,and i did not include the exact area of the Earth,but reduced it for a few times. I simplified it and we still got a huge number. If my previous argument was enough to destroy it,this one made it disappear. All i used is basic geometry for this and a lot of help from Google's calculator. My conclusion: If we have evidence that indicate that something happened in the past, then the possibility of that something is automatically greater than 0 (possible). I now hand over the debate to Con. Can't wait for his arguments. Good luck! Sources: [1] . https://www.physicsforums.com... [2] . http://www.ams.ac.ir... [3]