From a practical standpoint, our lives are guided by what we believe to be possible and what is not. I think it's impossible to fix the hard-drive in my computer with a hammer. I think it's possible that a computer technician can fix it. Such practical reasoning occurs on a daily basis with all of us and makes life livable.
 
As we look about our world at its incomprehensible complexity, it's easy to conclude that it's not the mere product of chance. That conclusion can be schooled out, but it still haunts us.
 
Since we actually know so little, it seems reasonable to believe that anything is possible. But that would mean there can be no certainty about anything. If true, all science would end and we would fear to put one foot in front of the other because of the "possibility" of the floor turning to quicksand or disappearing entirely.
 
Moreover, if anything is possible, then the chance that any one belief is correct (like the belief that anything is impossible) is infinitely small.
 
Nature's laws, not odds or opinions, define truths. Things fall to the ground, north poles attract south poles, negative charges attract positive charges, mass and energy are never destroyed, they just change places . . . and so on through all of science and mathematics. Laws, by definition, are 100% correct and any opinion contrary to them is 100% wrong.
 
The laws of probability are part of nature's laws and can be applied to the chance formation of life. Two critical precursors to life are proteins and nucleic acids (DNA, RNA). The odds of even a simple protein found in life coming into existence by chance is 1/10⁷⁸⁰⁰⁰. That's one chance in one followed by 78,000 zeros. The most important proteins, enzymes, cannot form without nucleic acids. Nor can information-carrying nucleic acids, as found in life, form without enzymes. If both were to form spontaneously and independently, the probability of them forming at the same time is one in 10¹⁶⁸⁰⁰⁰. (For details on these calculations, do an Internet search on origin of life probabilities or see my previous book, The Creation-Evolution Controversy.)
 
Moving on to the probability for an actual living organism. Morowitz calculated the odds to be one in 10340,000,000. Sagan said the odds of such an event was one in 10²⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰. (Don't underestimate these numbers. For perspective, the entire universe contains 10⁸⁰ elementary particles, and is 10¹⁷ seconds old.)
 
Probabilities determine truths we, and the technical, industrial, and commercial worlds rely on every day. For example, casinos win approximately 52% of the time, their patrons win 48% of the time. The fastest growing city in America, lavish Las Vegas, is being built with such a small probability advantage.
 
Using Sagan's above figure of one chance in 10²⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰ for life to form by chance, the odds are 99.99999 . . . for about two billion more 9's % against. If the casino's 52% is certain, this 99. + about a billion 9s % equals impossible.
 
Nevertheless, when faced with these dire probabilities, materialists will argue that there is still a numerator of one in Sagan's one chance in 10²⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰. That, they say, means there is still a chance.
 
But the one in the numerator is effectively vaporized by the denominator. Probability experts calculate that odds greater than one chance in 10¹⁵⁰ would be impossible. Some say one chance in 10⁵⁰ is impossible. Morowitz's 10³⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰, Sagan's 10²⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰ or my 10¹⁶⁸⁰⁰⁰ are definitely beyond even the most generous impossible probability of 10¹⁵⁰.
 
Making these numbers even more impossible is the estimate by mathematicians that the maximum number of chance events that could have occurred in the universe since its inception is 10¹²⁰. That would make Morowits's, Sagan's, and my odds impossible to even play out. It would be like trying to flip heads five times in a row but only being allowed to flip the coin once.

⌕ Click to enlarge

​Another tactic used to overcome the law of impossibility is to load the dice with infinite universes, vast time, and an appeal to gaps in our understanding. But there's a sample size of only one universe. Furthermore, time is the enemy of improbable events. In casinos, time always makes their slight edge pan out for them, not the gamblers. As for basing a belief upon what we do not understand or know, that would justify any belief in anything. It would also make such a belief unfalsifiable, which is the opposite of truth.
 
A leaf could jump to Pluto rather than fall to the ground (it is possible). One could calculate the odds for such a ridiculous thing and there would be a 1 in the numerator. But it won't happen because there's a law of gravity and several others that declare it won't. It's not a matter of odds; it's a matter of law.
 
Nature's laws demand that order and information (as in life) cannot emerge from chaos. That denies abiogenesis. Further, once order is present it cannot compound its order and information and improve upon itself. That denies evolution.
 
The only thing that can change the odds and create functionally complex order out of chaos is an intelligent agency.
 
This conclusion doesn't require any religious predisposition nor does it lead to one. We're simply opening our eyes to reason, evidence, and nature's laws.
 
Those who disagree that abiogenesis is impossible must prove by evidence or experiment that functional complexity on the scale found in even the simplest living organism can beat the odds and arise spontaneously and then further complexify. Stories, hypotheticals, extrapolations, and faith in future discovery do not qualify as proof.