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

Thank you for the answer, Con. Now i shall proceed with a rebuttal. Con admitted that given enough time, one could theoretically hit a certain point on a dartboard. Now that that is settled,let's see what Con presented. "Pro erred concerning the area of points on the tip of the dart. There are a an infinite number of points there as well." True,there are infinite number of points on the tip of the arrow (i prefer to call it arrow). But i was talking about the measurable area that hits the dartboard. That area is NOT a mathematical point,once again. If we were to look at it like Con did,the infinite number of points on the arrow will hit the infinite number of points on the fraction of the dartboard. In this case we have two infinites to deal with and we cannot make any proportion with just infinites. 1/infinity is undefined as infinity is not a number. But we know that if a number we are dividing with approaches infinity (in 1/x , x->infinity) then the product number is approaching 0. If the number is extremely small,we can start treating it as 0,but it is not the actual 0. So if you choose an AREA on the dartboard (that is the area of the tip of the arrow or bigger,say 2cm^2) Then chances are, of course bigger than 1/x , x->infinity,because x in this case does not go towards infinity,but is a finite number. I used the example with mathematical points to explain that the concept of infinity is meaningless to the argument,therefore proving that the chances of something happening are greater than 0. Of course that something had to happen within the constant laws of physics. In this case it's the past. We have enough proof of amino-acids combining to form proteins (we depend on that),and we have been able to prove that it is possible and even project it and see what could have happened. Just like if we choose an area of the dart so small that we have 10^67 chance to hit, given the time of 100 billion years. Though this is only the chance of that happening, it does not mean that it has to happen in the exact 100 billion years. We can hit that small area that we have 1 in 10^67 chance in one try. It is possible. It is also possible that proteins necessary for life can form in 1 billion years and less. We are not breaking any laws here. By this i proved that Con's claim that my analogy accomplishes nothing is false. I do not understand this from Con,i beg him to explain this sentence to me: "The probability for life coming about, on the other hand, is the dartboard equivelant to the probability for making a bull's eye once during one's entire life." Moving on: Occam's razor doesn't always mean that a solution with fewest assumptions is true. Con's Columbus analogy assumes that a law must be broke in order of something being achieved,that is, the law needs to be broke for that something to be achieved. It is possible and practical that someone altered the sources and did that unscathed. The example is with Hitler, sources tell that he shot himself in the bunker,but i read the news earlier this year on a popular website and in the newspaper that Hitler was alive,living in South America for 20-ish more years or so after the war. Though this is quite arbitrary,it is theoretically possible and "practical",since no one else saw Hitler's body besides a few dozen of his generals,before being thrown in a hole and lit on fire,so the allies wouldn't find/identify the body. And he was known for having an identical double. Now let the assumptions fly all over the place. "Ahem. Probability is the chance something will happen in the future. We are taking the pre-life view on earth for the purposes of this discussion. We can't calculate the probability of an event that's already happened. It's over. However, we can calculate the possibility that a view of history is correct. Pro could be arguing here that life did arise from non-life, and that therefore the event of abiogenesis occuring was obviously possible. However, that argument falls flat also. Why? Because abiogenesis was not recorded historically, and there is no evidence for it." So if probability is the chance something will happen in the future, then it means that probability is not meant for explaining the past. Well that is the point. Probability argument fails when it comes to explaining the past,it's meaningless! The evidence for abiogenesis is not relevant to this debate. And also scientists propose multiple number of hypotheses and then test them. The ones that pass the test become theories. So far we have a lot of evidence that life came from non-life during a series of chemical reactions. Now how exactly it came,scientists are still not sure,but as science progresses, we will eventually have the answer. Since this is not relevant to the debate,i will not go into detail here. For the raindrop analogy...Yes the chances of a raindrop to hit your nose is definite. But a chance raindrop that did hit your nose in the past,to actually hit your nose is 1 in 10^58 as i calculated. We are talking about that particular raindrop. See what is happening here? For your closing example you are looking at the Rushmore mountain faces as an uninformed person and assume that they formed naturally. However it's not just the calculating you have to do,as you already know. You have to do a research,collect the evidence and then form a theory. This is what scientists did. The theory of abiogenesis from non-life is a valid theory. You falsely assume in your final example that scientists are uninformed about the topic under discussion and research. That is all from me, can't wait to hear Con's rebuttal. Good luck!