Oh, I heard it decades ago. CRI has been tilting at this windmill for years and years.
And, it does not make X impossible, just improbable no matter what.
This statement is meaningless, it is self contradictory. The premise "improbable no matter what" is invalid and self-contradictory. To demonstrate:
All things that are improbable No Matter What are impossible.
X is a thing that is improbable No Matter What
Therefore
X is impossible.
Now, if you want to assert that X is both possible and is improbable then the conversation ends because you don't understand the contradiction inherent in the proposition and there is no use discussing anything with you.
The whole "but it's _possible_" defence is precisely what scientists are complaining to creationists about, and saying that science has error bars and all that, and then in the end to say "well, it may be more improbable than any event imaginable but you can't say it's impossible" is an abandonment of the entire establishment that was used to get away from the creationists in the first place.
Typical Red Herring, Straw Dog and any number of other fallacies. This isn't what scientists say, they never say "you can't say it's impossible" because this is the Fallacy of Proving the Negative. Science never deals in what one "can't say."
The issue isn't about "what's possible." The issue is "evidence." Science depends upon "evidence."
You ain't got one piece of "evidence" to hang your hat on for a "Designer." Not one. Creationism is structured to prove the very thing for which there is no evidence. You just won't admit the fact.
"Now, if you want to assert that X is both possible and is improbable then the conversation ends because you don't understand the contradiction inherent in the proposition and there is no use discussing anything with you."
Actually, you don't understand the presuppositions inherent in your logic. _If_ materialism was true, then your conclusions would be valid.
"You ain't got one piece of "evidence" to hang your hat on for a "Designer." Not one."
Really? Is that why nearly every biologist recognizes the amount of "apparent design" within nature, and, according to even the atheists, have to keep reminding themselves that it wasn't designed? I would say that all of the evidence, even as admitted by atheists, points to design. What happened was that Darwin _thought_ that he had found a mechanism to produce design without a designer. If he did, then that does put creationist arguments largely on ice. If he did not, then you are back to the fact that life exhibits many qualities of being designed.
If you disagree that life is designed, then perhaps you should propose a mathematical model for design, and show why life is not designed according to your model.