Rapture era would be the poster-child example, of how cognitive dissonance and presuppositional religious bias, can directly circumvent inductive and deductive reasoning. All religious presuppositionalists, or apologists, will always avoid providing their own objective verifiable creation-specific evidence, like the plague. They seem totally oblivious that the Laws and Theories of science, only apply to a material world governed by the 4 fundamental forces, and the universal law of cause and effect. Science makes no claims about the nature or existence of a spiritual or metaphysical world. Science only make falsifiable claims. Religions make unfalsifiable claims. Science is perceptual. Religion is conceptual. Religion is based totally on belief, and science is based on facts/data. If 100 sheep are pushed off a New York Skyscraper, there is a 100% certainty of a 100% fatality rate. Why? Is the results explained by belief, or by science? If the victims of beheadings, or those that died falling from the Twin Towers, are exempt from revealing their NDE to us, then can we make a logical assumption that "near death", does not mean "is death"?
Until fundamentalists realize that they must bring their own evidence and logic to the table to effectively argue their position, they will always be reduced to rote parroting creationists soundbite, and dismissing any and all scientific explanations. As long as they are embolden by others that believe the same, they will never need to critically rethink their position. It is always easier to dismiss and ridicule the claims of others, especially, when you don't have to provide any evidence for your own claims. There are no tools in science to verify that myths, superstitions, Gods, and the paranormal are all real.
We know that Evolution is a fact. We know that we all had parents, and our parents had parents, and so on. We know we will eventually reach a single parent of our species(Mitochondrial Eve). Since we know we were not here first, but carry the same genetic, biochemical, and biophysical functions from species before us, it is not a great leap of faith to surmise that we inherited these features from our ancestral species. And, that our ancestral species must have inherited their features from their ancestral species, and so on. Eventually, this leads us from multi-cellular organism to a single celled organism(prokaryote or Eukaryote). But single celled organisms are composed of even smaller organelles(mitochondria, ribosomes, RNA, Golgi bodies, vacuoles, etc.). These organelles have their functional characteristics defined by earlier bacteria, and they in turn by earlier microbes like viruses(3.5 Billion years ago). Viruses are the bridge between living and non-living. They are composed of molecules of RNA(or DNA) and protein. The molecules and atoms that make up viruses are also governed by at least 3 of the natural forces in nature. Including many natural environmental and chemical forces.
So, when we speak of abiogenesis, why is it so hard to see how the natural forces(chemical evolution) could have driven the creation of life? Or at least to be scientifically plausible? All the biogenic precursors(Amines, amino acids, lipids, self-replicating molecules, calcite precipitation, calcium carbonate precipitation, large molecular chains, dicarboxylic acid, undecanedioic and tridecanedioic acids, nitrogen and hydrogen gas, and many other biogenic and anthropogenic precursors and catalysts), were in abundance in the early earth. By understanding the nature, behavior, and properties of these non-living materials, it provides us with the tools necessary to at least investigate the theory of abiogenesis. There is Nothing to support, "God did it". Not even a method for inquiry.
It is just hypocritical to totally depend on the reliability of science, and dismiss it only when it clashes with our beliefs. So, unless you can demonstrate how you know that "God did it", and creation did not naturally occur, then you are simply just another flea biting the back of an elephant.
