The origin of biology

[truth_seeker]

If A has a  90% likelihood and B has a 10% likelihood, they are both possible.

Without appealing to the lack of a natural explanation for one or more observations of the real world, how did you determine that the supernatural had a positive likelihood?

You are making a logical fallacy.

You are (correctly) assuming that the set of possible explanations expand in the presence of new evidence.
But you are ignoring that new evidence can also shrink the set of possible explanations.

Accordingly, its is completely fine to say that two statements:
A     and      NOT A 
are both possible, with non-zero likelihood, until further evidence reduces the likelihood of one of them to exact zero