I think it is best if I try to summarise things.
We did discuss the likelihood of a series of events that led to life arising from non-life and we agree, in our own ways, that such a series of chemical reactions are improbable. But you then tell me that they are impossible, which is not the same. We can't recreate the exact conditions of the early Earth, as that event happened only once in the Earth's history, but suppose that experiments were carried out to get as close as possible to those conditions. There have been, and the building blocks of life have been made (amino acids, DNA components etc), in a much shorter space of time than what it may have actually taken. This is evidence it can happen, but what if we could also take evidence of all life now as evidence it can (and did) happen? It would mean no need for a god in the model.
I see no issue with accepting that the improbable can sometimes happen, however unlikely. The impossible can't (as in actually impossible, not a misunderstanding of what was impossible); so if there is a claim that there is something, an entity, that can do the impossible, is that entity also impossible and therefore cannot exist?