I suppose if time were infinite, evolutionists would claim life always existed. But the limited time allows probabibility to make powerful scientific arguments against evolution. Even Shapiro and Wilson state "although the idea was entertained at one time, it is now considered highly unlikely that a chance assemblage of prebiotic molecules could have been the source of the first bacteriumlike organisms.
The odds are overwhelmingly against it. Even these simplest of organisms are amazingly COMPLEX BIOLOGICAL MACHINES (sound familiar? and yet this term was first used by an evolutionist) that must be immensely more sophisticated than transitional forms that are thought to have bridged the gap between nonliving and living matter.
But how do evolutionists answer this question of How did the first one-celled creatures arise? Since they are too complex to form by spontaneous generation, they must be the products of evolution from even simpler beings.
This answer is absurd on it's face. A straight forward reading by any mildly honest and intelligent reader must bring hysterical laughter as evolutionists continue to be backed into the corner . They have lived by naturalism and they will die by it.
No it doesn't. You can only calculate probabilities when you understand the processes. If you are attempting to calculate the probability of a chain of events you must know what each event is and what the probability is of each event.
Since no one knows the chain of events leading to life, no one can calculate the probability.
If you attempted to calculate the probability of your own birth, using the methods employed by ID advocates, you would find your own existence impossibly improbable. And yet, there you are. It's kind of foolish to bet against something that has already happened.
It make more sense to assume it happened and to research the chain of events, attempting to replicate each element.