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

Again, thanks for the debate. Good luck Pro. You're gonna need it!Before starting, I would like to apologize if my fonts are distracting. I used Terminal font for my quotes from Pro out of respect for the medical state of his argument. (Sorry, but that was funny!)To answer the dartboard analogy: Yes, given enough time, one could theoretically hit a certain point on a dartboard. However, Pro erred concerning the area of points on the tip of the dart. There are a an infinite number of points there as well. Remember that any fraction of infinity is infinity. Or, to make it easier, realize that between every two points are more points, and between those are still more points, and so on ad infinitum. To say one area has an infinite number of points is to immediately fit all areas of all sizes with an infinity of points. And even if Pro was right and the number of points was not infinite (which is not the case), then the probability of hitting that point could not be >1 as the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is 0 and mathematically 1/∞ is undefined. Instead of talking of mathematical points, it would be far easier to simply calculate the area of the dartboard, and then calculate the probability of the dart hitting a certain area of the dartboard as [target area/total area]. Of course, Pro's mistakes were irrevelevant for the purposes of this debate, but they mattered to me. Now I will explain why his analogy accomplishes precisely nothing. You see, Pro explains that it is possible to hit a certain area on a dartboard given enough time and then extrapolates his findings to abiogenesis and concludes that it is also possible for that to occur as long as the probability of that happening is over zero. Well, first, let's look at the initial probability. " . . . the probability [would 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 . . ."The difference between this and the dartboard example is that time is already factored into the probability. This chemist, by Pro's own admission, has concluded that the odds are 1:67 x 10^67 even assuming 100 billion years were allowed. So while the probability of scoring a bull's eye on a dartboard might be, say, 1:175, that probability is for a single throw. The probability for life coming about, on the other hand, is the darboard equivelant to the probability for making a bull's eye once during one's entire life. And as the scientist says (and Pro does not deny it) odds as low as stated are low enough to be considered statistically impossible. Why? Well, a mathematician would refuse to rule out the possibility of any even with a probability of any ammount greater than zero. However, practically speaking, 1:67x10^67 is such a small number that an event with such a probability should be considered impossibile for all intents and purposes. (Except possibly, as Pro noted, in cases where the event might be repeated. However, this is not the case here. The probability here is the probability of a small protein forming in a window of 100 billion years. The event only happens once.) To phrase this differently: if your theory of history would depend on such great odds then you had better forget it. See Occam's Razor. Believing in evolution against these odds would be similar to maintaining a belief that Christopher Columbus did actually get to China, but that someone just altered all the historical sources. It's theoretically possible, but not practical in the real world.Pro's raindrop analogy is almost risable. Pro is carefully computing the odds that one raindrop will hit his nose. His odds are obviously flawed, as millions of raindrops fall every day. His calculations would only be practical if only raindrop existed and there was an equal chance of it falling anywhere on earth, from the Sahara desert to the Artic. Which is obviously not the case. Again, he cannot claim that I am proving his point in that the single raindrop hitting his nose would be impossible but that given time and other raindrops the event becomes possible, because as I already pointed out, the probability in question takes time into account while the raindrop analogy does not. Pro said:"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)."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. Abiogenesis is not the only theory that addresses life. (Just the only when evolutionists are happy with.) As there are other theories in play we should choose those that do not presuppose extremely or impossibly imporabable events. And the theory of abiogenesis should as a result be rejected as it requires us to assume something practically impossible happened, without evidence.To close with one final example: Suppose I stumble across a mountain carved with four heads. I calculate the odds of such amazing specimens of physiognomy arising from natural forces, and behold! They come out at 1 in 10^55. As I am switching off my calculator, a South Dakota native approaches with a guidebook detailing how certain men used technology to suspend themselves in a position where they could carve out the faces. I am not sure which theory to believe. Theory one is certainly more scientific, right? Audience, if you believe you would be able to choose in this situation, please post in the comments section your answer.