Scientists can only gather evidence in support of non-magical means whereby life could have originated and RNA as a molecule capable of enzymatic activity and information storage is the likely candidate.
Yes, you believe this because to think otherwise would not allow you to hold to your beliefs. You must project your own beliefs onto others while ignoring them in your own position in order to deceive yourself into believing that your philosophical choice is somehow superior to those you despise. Your own beliefs are no better than 'poof, magic', even with a name like 'hypothetical, abiogenic processes'. Give it a scientific-sounding name and people will believe 'poof, magic' and deny they do it.
"Scientists can only gather evidence in support of non-magical means whereby life could have originated and RNA as a molecule capable of enzymatic activity and information storage is the likely candidate."
This proceeds from an 'a priori' commitment to the position that life originate from naturalistic means, which begs the question in the first place, as Richard Lewontin admits:
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Unfortunately, such honesty is hardly found among the credulists who will swallow anything to retain their belief.
Where did the RNA come from?
(Clue: God provided it so that evolution could not happen, thus protecting his creation from corruption.)