Seriously, the only thing really tipping the scales in favor of the BB vs. the steady state at all is the redshift first observed by Hubble.
And that the BB is a consequence of Relativity. Which is a biggie. And it has predicted CMB. And it is consistent with inflation. Which has made impressive predictions in its own right. And that relativity has been tested very very vigorously. It's funny that anti-evolutionists are often happy to say they accept the theory of gravity...though they reject relativity...though they don't...but they do...
Some will say the steady state has a conservation of energy problem, but BB has more than one of these and they're all several orders of magnitude larger. It's like comparing a bucket of water to the Indian ocean!
The BB has no conservation of energy problems that I am aware of. The energy during the Big Bang is the same as it is today.
And don't forget the oldest member of the family: gradualist 'geology'. Have layers ever been observed building up gradually over time. Yes! The 'tels' in the Middle East were all built up this way. They're all man-made. Other than that, you won't see land building up the way gradualist geology speculates.
Of course you won't see it. If you did see it - you'd falsify the position. That seems like a daft thing to say. However, you can use reason to deduce that some areas will have a net deposition over time, and other areas will have a net erosion over time and over more time layers of deposition will pile up.
This is incredulity. "It isn't true because I can't see how it could be true".
. If there's any lifeform, even just one - any lifeform that evolution can't explain, it fails as an explanation of origins. Even a single organ that is beyond evolution to bring about demolishes it, right?
Evolution isn't an explanation of origins. However - evolution cannot explain all biological things. That is why we continue studying. If it turns out that the hypotheses in the theories of evolution can definitely not explain a biological thing we need another theory. Perhaps we have one, perhaps we'll come up with one if/when the time comes. It wouldn't demolish evolution though - the theory of evolution could still continue to explain many many things. And of course, it wouldn't demolish the fact of evolution.
And all a person has to do is look around this forum right here to see that this is so. How does any discussion of an evolutionary topic go? Snow the person under with tons of nonsense. Oh yes, and redefine terms a dozen times or more. There isn't a single link in the whole long chain of crud that can't be broken, and they themselves must know this - no question.
The odd thing is - it proves almost impossible to get creationists to agree on the definition of their terms. Evolutionists have very strict definitions of things, standard terms have to mean the same thing everywhere since they publish things and have to have everyone understand what they are saying.
Forum users are a different monster, naturally, but the general principles hold.
Now why must these things all be grouped together and taught as fact? Why is must it be illegal to mention any hint of weakness in any of these "theories?
Theories are not taught as facts. Facts are taught as facts (such as natural history) and theories are taught as theories (here is how evolution occurs according to ToE). It is not illegal to discuss problems with theory - however it is illegal to teach falsehoods to children undermine their confidence in materialism and wedge Christ into their lives (Ala the Wedge document produced by the anti-evolutionists). Most genuine weaknesses in theory have to wait until university level since they require a deep understanding of the science to appreciate.
(I don't mean to say a child will be jailed for asking, but the teacher is required to only affirm the doctrine, even when it is out-of-date by decades.)
That is a problem for all lessons. It's the inherent problem in standardising education.
And it's no surprise that the same people who accept any one of these things will usually accept all four. For they form an extended chain. If a person finds one to be in error, they will surely question the other three. Now I readily concede that persons do exist who mix things up and accept part of this chain while rejecting other parts. I also concede that this is a trick I could not pull off. But my point is that those who have rejected abiogenesis have at least questioned the other three issues.
It is also no surprise that people that reject evolution tend to be very religious. Almost invariably fundamentally religious in fact.
Now I recommend to anyone who cares about these things that they pick the strongest part of the strongest of these four stories, and take a good close look at it. What assumptions does it require up front? Does it employ circular reasoning or any other logical fallacies? Is it based on solid science, or speculation? (I mean really solid - not just a reputation). If you didn't believe the evolutionist stories, would you interpret it the way they do?
Lots of assumptions, but those assumptions have been tested and found to be reasonable.
No real circular reasoning or any logical fallacies.
Science (solid)
Most likely, though I probably wouldn't do as good a job unless I spent decades studying the subjects in question.
Oh, and don't be intimidated by mumbo-jumbo. I haven't seen much at all that I couldn't have tackled when I was 12 years old, not even in real science. Okay, that's a trick statement. I was smarter then than I am now. But none of it's as hard as they make it out to be.
Feynman once said something along the lines of 'if you think you understand quantum physics you don't understand quantum physics'. I don't pretend to understand subjects better than those that study them all of their lives, and am deeply suspicious when others claim to have as much of a grasp of science as scientists without the study.
It bears repeating how weak abiogenesis is. The advocates of evolution are reluctant to include it, and that's a dead give-away right there. Darwin himself was reluctant to offer more than threadbare speculations about a primordial pond, and they haven't improved the case much. Sure they make a big deal about synthesizing compounds in a lab, and claim they're creating life... but is it so? Or is it more mumbo-jumbo?
They neither claim to be creating life nor are they engaging in mumbo-jumbo. As you point out, they are making organic compounds. They might get excited if they manage to create an organic compound that they think is vital to the formation of life. Another piece of the puzzle slotted into place (or at least put in the right 'area').
Well, look into it. Look at the scale of the issue. It's like saying a toddler stacking one brick on top of another is building the Empire State Building. They're a long, long, long ways away.
I'd say it was more like Egyptians comparing their structures to the Empire State - but whatever the metaphor we agree that they are a long way away from cracking the problem. Which is why we need to research it more. To do that we need researchers. To do that we need to train scientists.
You don't achieve any of that by saying that they are teaching lies.
™ Version 4.2