That was because there was nothing to defend. You couldn't defend giving me "one wet iota" of evidence for ID. There is none, so you tried to change the subject. There is no probability for that which does not exist. Evolution exists, therefore the probability is 100 percent.
Pathetic
Yeah.
This a wholesale abdication on your part.
I take it as Proof that you have no argument. You can't prove your alternate universes. And your probabilities are insupportable.
Design is the only logical conclusion. And that goes for your probabilities on the biochemistry too. The supposedly 'higher probability' interactions which you assume have not been accounted for...are themselves highly improbable, hence likely designed in. I.e., the conclusion is well-nigh inescapable, that the universe was designed to support life. Again, probability defeats you handily.
Hence, you can''t give one wet iota of proof for naturalism. The burden of proof is on you, and you don't know probability:
"Evolution exists" says you. ..."therefore the probability is 100 percent."
That turns around. Clearly, first, that is a nonsequitur. And then second, if you start from the opposite,( and well defended alternate hypothesis) "Evolution doesn't exist"...therefore the probability is 100 percent against. Ditto, eh?