"a- it requires some sort of naturalistic miracle without a miracle maker!"

Huh? That's not science, it's a creationist statement. Show me a single peer-reviewed paper that says any natural process (including evolution) requires a "naturalistic miracle", whatever one of those actually is.


"b- things like easily degrading materials still being present, that ought to be long gone if really MYO."


Righto, apart from the rather ambiguous phrase "things like easily degrading materials" which lacks any specific reference to whatever you're talking about, this statement seems to demonstrate a continued lack of understanding of the whole concept of science.

Who says they should be gone? You? Me? If by careful testing, confirmation and peer review we learn they're still present then we can assume they're not as easily degradable as we thought. There y'go - something learnt. Science in action.

I don't know for certain whose work you're referring to here, but think I can guess and this is an old Creationist trope that misunderstands what is a reasonably contentious hypothesis. Thing is, this Creationist nonsense makes the science sound far less interesting than it actually actually is. The testing of hypothesis often throws up new discoveries that lead to greater understanding and progress. It's all good.