We know that our universe supports life because we're here to ask this kind of question. Therefore, the probability of our universe being the kind of universe that supports life is 100%. This is known as the 'anthropic principle' which says that since we're here, our universe must necessarily have constants and laws of physics that allow life. At the moment we know of only one universe, and that universe does support life. The probability then of any universe being able to support life is currently 100% until such time as we are certain that other universes exist. If I show you one side of a coin, you have no way of knowing if the probability of flipping a 'heads' is 100% or 50%. You don't know if both sides are 'heads' until you either look, or flip the coin and get a 'tails'.

The point I'm making is that the 'probability of a universe supporting life' you have quoted is a guess, nothing more. It is based on string theories and an estimated number of possible universes. Even if it is correct, there is still nothing for our universe to 'overcome'. Suppose your odds of winning the lottery are 1 in a million. It's unlikely you will win, but if 100 million people play the lottery, the odds of someone winning are high. The probability of a universe being the kind of universe that can support life might be small, but if you have a lot of possible universes then the probability that one of them will support life could be high. And, by the anthropic principle, we'd be living in that universe because in the others we wouldn't survive!

None of our scientific theories suggest that life got here 'by accident'. What we think is that there must be lots of planets on which conditions for life are met. We now have evidence of hundreds of solar systems besides our own, which suggests there could be lots of planets out there similar to the earth.

We don't know how life got started but we think over millions, even billions of years, some chemical or physical mechanism managed to produce self-replicating molecules and, eventually, the first single-celled organisms. Now this could be very, very, very improbable and still have happened. If there are a billion planets out there like earth, and the odds of life arising in this manner are one in a billion, then we'd expect one planet to have life. And here we are, asking the questions!

In other words, given the number of stars and the number of possible planets, the odds of life forming could be incredibly tiny and yet we'd still expect life to arise somewhere. Again, there's nothing to 'overcome' ... if we have a large number of universes or a large number of planets then the odds of one planet and one universe having life are not improbable.

Hey look, I can copy and paste aswell! Knowing the mathematics that made the guy arrive at that probability would also be nice.

This Penrose nonsense has been beaten to death umpteen times.
If you want to spend some quality time, look for "potholer" videos on youtube. Since you belong exactly to the group of boneheaded people the thread starter addresses, it is easy to predict you won't.

I assure you that there are many different ways that Christians reconsile their faith in creation and evolution. Most Christians I would assume don't even see a conflict between the two. The whole evolusion vs intilligent design discussion is a very American concept.

Brain washing etc

Why do evolution still accepts christians?

Well I don't know about creationists, (Those who blindly ignore scientific fact and try to force things into a smaller time frame, ie young universe theories), but the creation account cannot be debunked by science. The account contained in Genesis has been praised by scientist because of the order is exactly how it would look from a bystander on Earth. (The word day in the original Hebrew has the mean of era or period of time.)

Also the account on what life came first is supported by the fossil record. (The family "trees" need to be interconnected which isn't the case.) Plus the number to "missing-links" have has decreased since the 1800's with the improvement of technology.

Math also plays a part. The provability and possibility of the varying evolutionary theories is deep in what mathematicians call the realm of impossibility. (Where the chance are so low that it would take more time then is given, ie the age of the universe.) The book Darwin's Black Box, written by Biochemist Michael Behe, touches on this subject when he covers the "irreducibly" complex system of the cascading clotting system. It is a very good and technical read.

There is also the order and fine tuning of the universe needs to support life. The list goes on. I did write nearly a hundred page essay on this for Biology in collage.

The conclusion is the record in Genesis and the records of science are too similar in nature that neither can be debunked without having to into the past and witnessing it.

Is that not unlike asking why atheists do not believe faith/religion?

"We don't know how life got started but we think over millions, even billions of years, some chemical or physical mechanism managed to produce self-replicating molecules and, eventually, the first single-celled organisms."

We think , we don't know.  Their is no factual proof for either.  Christians at least admittedly take what they think they know or feel as an act of faith.  Thomas edison was quoted as saying that the accumulative knowledge of all mankind is less than 1/10th of 1%. given what we have learned since then assuming all our knowledge equals an incredible 1% of all knowledge in the universe isn't it possible that in the 99% we don't know that their is evidence of a creator?  given how little we do know isn't it ignorant to assume that you know something and act pompous and take a holier-than-thou attitude on a subject that has no factual proof one way or the other?

You "don't know about creatonists" but quote one as your best source? Wow, just wow..

Because science doesn't use religious belief systems as tools?