I seem to recall mentioning in my exposition of the duplicity of “design” apologetics, that comparing apples to atom bombs (or a similar metaphor) was standard operating procedure for the “design” fetishists. Not surprising to see it appear in other areas of apologetics either, but thanks for making this explicit. Every little tip helps. 
A word of caution here, not least because I’m aware of the duplicitous apologetics that will inevitably be deployed.
What matters to scientists, is whether or not the event in question is a member of a repeatable class.
Take, for example, the discovery of Tiktaalik (a fossil which, incidentally, was predicted to exist before it was found, a point that creationists deliberately ignore when peddling their lies about fossils). At the moment, I’m only aware of one fossil of this organism being found, but the thoroughly mendacious apologetics about “historical science” peddled by the likes of the Duplicity Institute,who are particularly fond of this brand of malfeasance, are destroyed by the fact that with respect to other fossils, multiple instances have been found. In the case of trilobites, for example, we have, if anything, an embarrassment of riches in this vein - there are now 17,000 species known to science, and the vast majority of them enjoy verification via the existence of multiple specimens.
Consequently, “fossil X appearing in stratum Y” may be (initially at least) a “one off” event, but it’s an event that is part of a repeatable class. There’s no reason why more events of this sort may be uncovered in the future, and there are literally millions of precedents for this with respect to other taxa.
Of course, even if, in the case of Tiktaalik, scientists predict that another 10 fossils of this taxon will be found, in specific, well-defined strata at specific, well-defined locations, and all ten predictions come true, the usual suspects will still peddle the tiresome and predictiable ex recto apologetic fabrications in a failed attempt to hand-wave away this level of success. Of course, I don’t really need to tell you to be on your guard against this sort of mischief, but the big problem that we all face, when attempting to preserve the norms of honest discourse, is how those efforts will be abused on a galactic scale by the usual suspects.
I’m also reminded that Tiktaalik is subject to special levels of creationist duplicity, because it’s manifestly an anatomical intermediate between Panderichthys and Acanthostega, and constitutes a prime example of a transitional form, of a sort that creationists routinely blindly assert cannot or does not exist. The blather about “kinds” is a fantasy that can be dismissed not only because it’s completely and utterly irrelevant to biology, but because creationists themselves, hilariously, cannot agree what a “kind” is, and the rampant anti-consilience involved should lead anyone with functioning neurons to be immediately suspicious of the cant and wibble in question.
The Higgs Boson is another case in point, though one that’s now on a much more solid footing. One of the reasons it took 40 years to find it, was because particle physicists didn’t have a reliable indication of the mass it possessed. That the Higgs mechanism for electroweak symmetry breaking provided predictions of the existence of several other particles, predictions confirmed by particle accelerator experiments, of course wasn’t enough in itself - we needed the Higgs Boson itself.
Detection thereof was, of course, helped by the fact that it’s unique (as far as we know) among Standard Model particles in being a spin-0 boson (or scalar boson), while the others thus far known from particle accelerator data are spin-1 (vector) bosons. But even with that knowledge in place, it had to be hunted for experimentally across a wide range of energies, and only when a “hit” was found at 125 GeV, were particle physicists able to home in on ways of producing Higgs Bosons in sufficient numbers to obtain data on them. Now, of course, that data is in, and no one aware of that data seriously doubts that the Higgs Boson is real.
Moreover, the data available on the Higgs Boson presents some nicely difficult obstacles in the way of duplicitous apologetics, but that, of course, won’t stop the usual suspects. Who, of course, will never stop trying to force-fit-reality to pre-scientific mythology.