"I think it goes like this. as darwinists know the laws of probability weigh heavily against them"

You can't invoke "the laws of probability", which have been discovered by one branch of science, whilst discrediting an other branch; you're either for science or against it, you can't pick and choose to suit your argument. Your argument consists of 'those nasty Darwinists will say anything to defend their position', whilst back in the real world people have been addressing Darwin's theory since it was published; lots of detail to go into there.

If you're arguing is God (or whatever deity or being you believe in) could exist then that's one thing, if you are arguing if she made the earth in six days 4000 years ago then you need evidence, not just the say so from one source.

Palaeontologists are very well versed with probability and other statistical methodologies, so no issues there (I am yet to get seriously stuck into stats, but it will happen over next few years), but your invocation of multiverses doesn't have any relevance to the argument over evolutionary theory, as even if there are multiple universes all palaeontologists and other earth scientists are only studying the one we can see, which is this one.

Look pete, YOU can settle this and you do not need to be an expert or need to travel to far away places (lots of good fossil-bearing rocks right here in the UK). Find a non-derived fossil where modern palaeontological theory says it shouldn't be. Test the science and prove it wrong. Find a horse in Triassic strata, a salamander in the Edicarian or a turtle in the Devonian. Produce one out of sequence fossil, record and note it's location (so it can be confirmed) and you will be the most famous person in history, you would probably win a nobel prize: the man who re-wrote the textbooks, who proved creationism might be correct.

Go on.