No need to get defensive. If you don't understand, consult a dictionary.
What does you theory do?
Your theory is not exempt from the rules of logic. Your naturalist presuppositions are logically bankrupt. You or any other darwinist on this thread has failed to address the foundational problems and I don't need to guess that it is because you are incapable. If you have any sort of naturalistic explanations for your evolutionary miracles, I would be interested in hearing them.
Music theory has little to say on the origin of air
I think you may be in over your head here. Let me explain. Regarding only one of the materialistic miracles, the existence of matter can only be explained in 3 ways. Two of the three ways defy logic.
Explanation One
1: Matter created it self. I've already explained that self-creation is a logical absurdity. Check any intro-to-philosophy to verify that. It is absurd because something must exist in order for it to create itself.
Explanation Two
2:) Matter has always existed. This is also absurd. We know of no physical laws that allow for anything material in this universe to exist eternally. Even secular cosmologists agree that time began with the Big Bang. If time began with the Big Bang, nothing, therefore, can be eternal. One typically lame objection is that matter came from another universe. If matter came from another universe, then there is a reality outside our universe which is in the favor of the theist. And, it should be pointed out, that the existence of another universe would destroy the materialistic presuppositions necessary for naturalism. Yet another problem with this idea is that assigning the origin of this universe to that of another universe is called an infinite regression which, of course, is also logically absurd and never does deal with the issue of the origin of matter.
Explanation Three
3: The third option is that matter was created. This option is not only logical, it is the best explanation of all and solves the difficulties of the first two explanations. This is the only option that has some evidence in its favor. Unfortunately, evolutionists evidence that supports their worldview and reject evidence that doesn't fit.
Really? Why so?
2:) Matter has always existed. This is also absurd.
Really? Why so?
3: The third option is that matter was created.
Since you think you are being logical, doesn't that idea logically lead to the question of who created it and where such creators came from? Do I need to mention "turtles all the way down"?
"...variation, heredity, and reproductive success are the three legs of biology" should read "...variation, heredity, and reproductive success are the three legs of the theory of evolution"
Sorry about the confusion.
In fact, if time began with the big bang (and presupposing that everything started with the big bang), then everything is eternal (or at least everything has always existed up to the present). Your contradiction is in simultaneously assuming both that there was and that there wasn't a "time before time". If time began with the big bang, then there can be no "before" the big bang.
Be careful, at one time the notion of the Earth circling the Sun "defied logic".
("Don't be ridiculous, if the Earth were moving we'd feel it, or fall off!")
Armchair "logic" is fine for brainstorming some ideas to test, but sooner or later you need to reality-check them or it's all just alchemy.
3: The third option is that matter was created.
Right, by the Big Bang. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
This option is not only logical, it is the best explanation of all and solves the difficulties of the first two explanations. This is the only option that has some evidence in its favor.
Indeed.