Yes, the evidence and scientific study pertaining to things such as the age of the universe, are sophisticated studies, but unless people have a BASIC grasp of logic they are not going to see the difference between such matters as FACTS, INFERENCES, CONCLUSIONS and even FICTION.
Lot's of people conflate things such as inference and fact. An inference is something that can be deduced FROM the facts, or there is a PROPOSITIONAL inference, which is PROPOSED to follow from the facts, but is unknown as it can't be tested with absolute certainty, as a fact can be. Macro-evolution is a proposed inference, they propose it can be inferred based on factual studies. There is no mechanism or experiment that can actually tell us whether it really does, "follow", as logically you would need to PROVE it by showing it. A bacteria with a novel design, that never before existed, would prove it. There are no such examples, even though millions of bacteria years pass in only perhaps a couple of centuries of our own time.
Because we're so very PRONE to make mistakes in our own minds, and conflate things this way, we ourselves can, disturbingly, quite easily even conflate a fact with a fict. (I will use the term, "fict" for, "fiction", as opposed to a fact.)
How do we know if we are conflating a fact with a fict?
I am going to define the term, "Fict", as " something mistaken to be a fact when logical rules dictate that it should be tentatively regarded as closer to a fiction because it is a grand claim. "
You might think, "how can anyone make such a mistake?"
It's easier than you think.
My first example of a FICT, is a primordial lifeform.
It is proposed by science that a primordial lifeform or forms, existed, the evidence for such forms will be inductive, which means that you can only find weak evidence that might confirm it but certainly not prove it. To prove it logically you need an example of such a form.
You might say, "that's unfair, why should it need proof". It needs proof because every lifeform, one hundred percent of the data we have, shows that there are only complete lifeforms. The living forms today are all complete and viable design-forms, which is a 100% fact. There is no such thing as a "primordial form" any more than there is such thing as Santa Claus.
It's VERY important, that in our own minds we don't just GRANT truth-value to something because of consistent evidence for it. There is consistent evidence for many things that are not true. Gifts under the Christmas tree would be consistent with Santa. Also, the greater a claim is, the more it needs direct proof. You might say, "why?" Well, think about it - would you believe someone could fly like superman because of evidence? Would you believe aliens visited because of evidence? A rational person WOULD NOT! The only thing anyone in their right mind would accept would be direct 100% proof.
You need proof of a primordial lifeform logically because all of the data shows there is no such thing. You can protest and say, "there might have been such a thing" but you could state that about anything. For example, "there might have been a UFO that visited Mary and an alien that abducted her." Just objecting won't change the fact there is no proof, therefore the burden of proof is upon those making the claim that goes contrary to reality.
FICT 1. A primordial lifeform/s.
FICT 2. A primordial world.
The second fict is believed to be a fact by many people yet they don't seem to be aware that 100% of the data shows that the earth exists, and has been that way for as long as recorded time. Why should we "grant" that the earth used to be another planet entirely just for the sake of a theory? A primordial world only exists on paper. To assume it exists is to assume it to exist in order so that you can have a primordial lifeform come about from the primordial world. Seeing a pattern yet?
They BELIEVE a primordial world existed, in order to BELIEVE a primordial lifeform came to exist, in order to BELIEVE that this form gave rise to all modern lifeforms trough biological evolution.
The only "fact" in the above statement is, "modern lifeforms". If you think there are more "facts" in the above statement then you are a person that incorrectly CONFLATES terms such as "fact, evidence, inference, proposal, fiction, etc..."
There is no primordial world, nor lifeforms and there is no proof there ever was, only scanty clues that might be consistent with the proposal. The only genuine facts show that to get a lifeform you need biological programming, DNA information, and a whole host of contingency plans for the engineering problems you get from designing them to be viable.
It's of VITAL importance to remember that I am only stating known-facts.
FICT 3. Fict 3 is the belief that a lifeform can come to exist in the right conditions as opposed to reality, which shows that in the right conditions, only existing lifeforms exist, that are already in existence, as proved by the earth, right now, as a real-life proof. Usually they SWITCH the conditions, they SAY that to get life, you need the life to be different from the lifeforms we now have, and that the conditions of the world also have to be different.
1. That is a cunning way of removing the fact that REAL lifeforms don't come to exist in the right conditions.
2. It replaces reality with fictional versions of reality.
People FORGET, we have an earth right now that is perfect for life, and we have real lifeforms that live on that earth, and do we see lifeforms arising in those perfect conditions? No, only already-existing forms!
So right now, we have an earth with the right conditions, and there are ZERO, that is 0% examples of REAL life springing up. 100% of the data shows that all lifeforms in the right conditions, are ALREADY-EXISTING lifeforms, that have not arisen by chance but by reproduction of DNA information through replication.
ALL 3 fallacious FICTS are abysmally refuted, by notation of logic, and a simple ability of SEPARATING genuine reality and facts from fictional stories that ALLEGEDLY happened.