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

I think Con did understand me when he said, "We can hit that small area that we have 1 in 10^67 chance in one try." I already explained that while an event can be possible mathematically (in that it has a probability) it can also be unlikely enough to be removed as a possibility. If your chances of EVER hitting a dartboard were that low, there would be no point in even trying. You would never hit it, period. So Con's analogy does accomplish nothing.Occam's razor tells us that we should not add an assumption to our theory if it does not explain the evidence any bettter. As Isaac Newton said, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (1) Now, that would mean we should not add a componant that would require something practically impossible to happen to our theory of history. Abiogenesis is not a sufficient explanation, as it is practically impossible. Records aside, if our view of history requires something impossible to happen, it is probably wrong. For example, if my theory required Columbus to completely miss both North and South America (not an easy feat) and then sail to China with only half the supplies he actually needed, it would probably be wrong. Why? Well, the chances of Columbus doing that are practically impossible, especially given his mutinous crew. Occam's razor tells us that the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions or the simplest explanation should be (in general) preferred. The Christian view that God created life requires fewer assumptions than the evolutionary view that life spontaneously generated, a view that was disproven centuries ago and would require something impossible to happen. Believing in a Creator requires fewer leaps of the imagination than believing nature beat the (impossibly high) odds. But evolutionists prefer abiogenesis simply because it avoids God. Probability is not meaningless in the past. It is quite meaningful when we try to recreate a portion of the past that we are ensure of. We can conclude, based on probability, that some things definitely never happened (like abiogenesis). And, as I pointed out, if our view of history requires something impossible to happen, it is probably wrong. The reason evolutionists believe in the abiogenesis hypothesis is because excluding God, it's their only hope of explaining our life-filled world. Unfortunately, abiogenesis is, practically, impossible, which means that abiogenesis should remain a hypothesis and a failed one at that.Going back to the particular raindrop . . . IF the odds for a particular raindrop to hit your nose were that high, then that particular raindrop would not hit your nose. That would be impossible. It would be similar to picking one grain of sand off the beach and then coming back a year later and picking that same grain. So, how come a raindrop can hit my nose? Well, it is my turn to destroy Pro's argument with a probability example. Suppose the odds of picking up a particular grain of sand are 1:30,000,000,000. It would seem impossible that I could pick a grain of sand, right? And yet, I am able to pick a particular grain of sand, despite the odds. Do you catch the fallacy here? If I reach down on the beach, the odds that I will pick A grain of sand are 1:1. The same with the raindrops. If you stand in the rain for 5 minutes, the odds that A raindrop will hit your nose are 1:1. If you were looking for a particular raindrop to hit you, and the odds were as high as Pro calculated (I personally do not think they are accurate) then THAT PARTICULAR raindrop would never hit you. Reason: it would be statistically impossible. Nice try, Pro, but you accomplish nothing. "You falsely assume in your final example that scientists are uninformed about the topic under discussion and research."The probability of faces naturally forming on a mountain are about equal to the probability life came from non-life. After all, there are some pretty weird rock formations. Given enough time, couldn't wind and rain carve out a face (or 4) every now and then?Believing life, and especially the library of encyclopedias of information that DNA contains, came from chance and chemicals is equivelant to looking at a message in the clouds that spells Terry ♥ Sally Gardener and concluding that wind and natural forces produced it. Really. When have you seen a working book created by chance? Information does not come from chaos. (2)Thanks for debating, by the way. Good luck, and I hope you realize that God does exist and that you wil at least investigate Christianity. (1) http://math.ucr.edu...(2) "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek