Here is your reference to time and space:
The universe is expanding at nearly the speed of light.
It cannot expand into nothing since there would be nothing into which it could expand.
Therefore it is expanding into something.
That "something" is outside of the universe.
Therefore there exists something outside of the universe.
If a postulate is invalid because it raises more questions than it answers, then truly evolution is invalid.
Your argument is simply that the volume of the universe is infinite. The argument of a time before the big bang is simply that time is infinite. Logic doesn't require that the universe expand "into" anything, but if the universe does, than what do you suppose separates the universe from that thing? Inherent in your notion of that thing is that it is space. It is simply more of the universe.
The universe is, *by definition*, all that exists. There isn't an existence "outside" or "before" the universe. For the notion of a *finite* universe to have any unique meaning, that definition must be retained.
Maybe you are right and the universe is infinite. However, there is no inherent contradiction in the notion of an expanding universe of finite volume and time.
I don't know what you mean here by "postulate", but an idea is not invalidated simply by raising questions. The trouble with the creationist view is that it not only ultimately doesn't explain anything (except to say "God makes it happen") but it asks us to accept a "reality" contrary to what we can observe and comprehend.
Many evolutionary theories at least attempt to explain observations within the realm of the observable universe.