The rate of spontaneous creation of matter postulated by steady state theories is so tiny (I believe the figure I quoted from memory, 1 hydrogen atom/ M**3 per century is approximately correct) that no known experimental technique could possibly detect it. This is very convenient for those who need to justify it, and it is admittedly an untestable a priori proposal. But it is certainly no more inherently absurd than to posit that all the hydrogen in the universe was created instantaneously in a femtosecond in the Big Bang.

But that is not the point, I personally believe the evidence so far for the evolutionary universe is much more compelling and I am willing to accept it...for the time being! I do not believe in the steady state theory, I just find it more philosophically attractive. The new evidence for the evolutionary universe had a very profound effect on me as a young man because it finally convinced me that you must accept the evidence, and that you can't reject it simply because it doesn't "seem" right. I believe you and I both believe in the correct theory, but I also think you believe in it for the wrong reasons. The best circumstantial evidence for this is that an entire generation of very clever cosmologists once believed in the wrong theory, and for the wrong reasons.

"an evolving universe leaves room for changes"

"I have no problem with a limited universe"

"one cannot, it seems, have an infinite universe within another infinite universe..."

These are all psychological and philosophical statements, not scientific ones. The last one is even demonstrably false: the set of all integer numbers is the same size (has a 1-to-1 correspondence) as the set of all rational numbers, but the set of irrational numbers is actually larger than the other two, in fact, infinitely larger. And they are all infinite sets! The proof of this is simple and elegant, but I doubt I can reproduce it any more. Look up aleph-null, aleph-1 and aleph-2 in set theory.

Again, the psychological question is why should the older generation find steady state appealing, while the younger is automatically skeptical. In both cases, the answer lies in cultural or psychological reasons, not scientific ones. History may have something to do with it too. I don't think religion has anything to do with it. I suspect the ratio of agnostics and theists in both camps is about the same.