The probabilities are correct but abiogenesis happened twice anyway. I included this simply because it is one possibility, and I have recently seen some creationists abusing probability theory by claiming that low probabiliity events don't happen. But more about that later. Evidently it wasn't controversial enough. I agree with Brian's response to Jim's response, and his elaboration of my second point.
Most researchers agree that the model is flawed.
The probability arguments assume there is only one solution for each subproblem. Since it's easy to give an example of an event whose probability is identically zero, yet occurs, this is patently false. However, some creationists seem to have fastened onto this thirty year old erroneous model as though it were rock-solid, attached some bad probability theory to it, and misled thousands of young Christians. That gets my dander up. All we would have succeeded in doing, should we be able to satisfy the above criteria, is to have understood something more of the means God has at his disposal for doing these things.