Not only do some things not become probable, they're reasonably always going to remain unreal even if not technically impossible.
The atheist evolutionist uses this reasoning, with an implicit argument so that people are forced to think the following; "if it's not impossible then it's only a matter of probability, and therefore no matter how improbable given enough time or numbers it becomes probable."
However, I question the premise that, "if it's not impossible it's therefore a matter of probability."
That reasoning is wrong if we can show there is an example of something that is not impossible, but that is still not a matter of probability and therefore will not become more probable no matter how much time passes.
I have an example.
You will never get all of the leaders of the world come together in one room and decide to blow up the world predicated on the fact that they don't like that Michael Jackson exists and that they have no feet.
Is it impossible? No. Is it improbable? No, but despite that it will never happen because that will never be a reason to blow up the world because they would know that Jackson is dead and they do have feet.
It's absurd to object; "given enough haters of Jacko and enough people exist it may happen". But it wouldn't because Jackson is dead so why would the world's existence still be a problem? It would be a matter of probability only if Jackson existed.
You may object; "you could get a line up where all leaders believed he still existed", but by the time that happened Jackson would be a zillion years old so again, it's not improbable. You may further object; "there would eventually be people that believed they didn't have feet and that Jackson lived forever".
But it's silly talk. People just don't believe certain things. Add enough silliness up and eventually you get something that requires personalities that don't exist and never will. You may object; "AHAH! Then it's impossible!" But no, it isn't because it is possible to reason those things, nothing stops someone from reasoning that the world should end for those reasons. It's not intrinsically impossible unless it can't actually happen no matter what, but it could happen hypothetically.
It can happen hypothetically, but a square circle can't.
You may object, "such personalities are square circles because nobody would ever do such actions". Yes but they have freewill, they could decide to do it just as I decided to reason it out as an argument. It can actually physically happen, it is possible. Think about it, would you have ever bet on anyone creating the argument I have just made? Nobody has ever argued it yet I did, but the only reason I did was to point out why it won't happen anyway. It is neither impossible nor improbable nor probable, yet would never happen because even arguing it could happen is so rare that it's the first time anyone has ever argued it when I argued it just now.
Conclusion; nature just doesn't have certain paths cross so those things remain separate and therefore unreal. They run metaphorically parallel meaning they can only exist separately not because they are impossible but because they have no reason to occur therefore it's also not a matter of probability.
We INNATELY know it would never happen. Not because it is improbable nor impossible but simply because it will always be fiction.
There just needs to be a reason for some things to occur and with some things they can only occur with teleology as the cause. (done on purpose). That is the only reason why this Jackson-argument happened, was because someone done it on purpose. Would anyone ever argue that in the future bananas with moustaches will be the rulers of the world but only on Wednesdays? (think about it, nobody ever has until now)
In the same way that is why a protein would never assemble itself, UNLESS someone designed it to. That is why God created life and not abiogenevolution.
