Creationism: Last Debate of 2010 on the subject.

[shagdrum]

so is god and the supernatural.

And so is science.

you need logic to have science.

But the reverse is NOT true. You do NOT need science to have logic. Therefore, your equating of science and logic is false.

you don't experiment on willy-nilly ideas.

That is precisely what science does. It takes "willy nilly ideas" as hypothesis to be tested and empirically verified.

Unfortunately, your materialist worldview operationally assumes that if something cannot be empirically verified, it does not exist. This rejects all deductive logic and misses a whole host of phenomena that do exist, like ideas, the mind, etc.

as i've said before. show me the evidence for it. something concrete.

Again, you are assuming materialism. You need to justify that assumption. Otherwise, this is nothing more then a loaded statement.

If something physical comes from nothing (which is what the Big Bang assumes) then, BY DEFINITION what every brought that something into existence would be TRANSCENDENT and would NOT have "something concrete" or empirical "evidence" to verify it. The ONLY way to verify it would be though DEDUCTIVE logic, which is another thing your loaded statement rejects.

If all you are going to do is try and turn this into a "heads-I-wing, tails-you-lose" situation to avoid any critique of your own notions, then you are not discussing things honestly and in good faith, thus wasting everyone's time here. If you are simply looking to win by default here, then you only undercut your own credibility.

Let’s be clear that “above” is your term, not mine. It is sadly the result of your philosophy acting as an interpretive lens through which you read the writings of others. I suggest you attempt to grasp my ideas rather than read your ideas and your philosophy into my words.

This is the biggest boundary to honest productive discourse and it applies to much more then theological discussion.

 

[foxpaws]

Let’s be clear that “above” is your term, not mine. It is sadly the result of your philosophy acting as an interpretive lense through which you read the writings of others. I suggest you attempt to grasp my ideas rather than read your ideas and your philosophy into my words.

Transcendent does not mean “above” but “outside” and the male gender participates in God’s masculinity insofar as a man acts upon a woman and enters into her from “outside” to produce new life in her. Woman is receptive to man just as the universe is receptive to God. I am not saying that men are better than woman but that the sexes participate in something far more cosmic and far more grand than modern society seems to think. In any case, men must still be receptive (in a feminine sense) to God. In many ways, I think women can have a far easier time in responding to God because they literally embody receptivity. So if anything, being a woman is a help, not a hurt.

Sorry Fed - but before we can talk about this I need a common ground for what you meant by Transcendent when relating it to men/women

1. going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding.
2. superior or supreme.
3. Theology . (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc. Compare immanent ( def. 3 ) .
4. Philosophy .
a. Scholasticism . above all possible modes of the infinite.
b. Kantianism . transcending experience; not realizable in human experience. Compare transcendental ( defs. 5a, c ) .
c. (in modern realism) referred to, but beyond, direct apprehension; outside consciousness.​

The definitions that work with a male/female relationship would be 1 and 2 -

You are going with some obscure 'Philosophy' definition in Modern Realism, sort of?

So, can you see that this wasn't some

attempt to grasp my ideas rather than read your ideas and your philosophy into my words.

I was going with very standard definitions for the word "Transcendent", you seem to be outside the norm on this one.

So, is transcendent the word that you should be using? I can't see it working in the way you referenced it.

Shag - don't be so quick to judge....

 

[shagdrum]

It is worth pointing out that there is a lot of overlap in those definitions of "transcendent"; they are not completely distinct from one another. Another point to consider, is the marginal distinction between the various definitions relevant to this discussion?

Also, the notion of transcendence does not simply have some "obscure" philosophical connotation, the notion stems from philosophy. Any understanding of transcendence that only views the philosophical connection as incidental is a false understanding of the idea.

As to the issue of reading your own ideas into someone else's words; the point I was making was not limited to only this discussion (or even this forum) and not to any one person in particular.

 

[foxpaws]

I understand where you’re coming from, but I’m just giving you what the sciences have thus far had to offer. The standard scientific explanation of the universe is that all matter, space, and time came into existence at the Big Bang. Thus the scientific view of the universe is: (1) there is nothing, (2) there is something and that something immediately explodes and expands, and (3) the eventual cool-off following the explosion resulted in the universe as we now see it. Every model of the universe since the 1980s has verified and re-verified this fact.

So - you can see where I have problems with the something/something immediately explodes. I just don't see there not being a time lag between the two - it just doesn't work with physics. They can't be simultaneous - so if whatever started the Big Bang had to be there the moment before the Bang - that moment before the bang stretches into 'always' because the Bang created not only space - but time too.

I was really hoping to avoid talking about a “previous universe, an adjoining universe, [or] a slip in time from the current universe.” All of these are purely hypothetical, have no basis in what has been observed through scientific research, and only can result in pushing our conversation back one level. We will still need to ask: where did these other things come from? The matter does not come down to why I lock myself in with ‘God,’ but whether or not I lock myself into reality. The reality is that the universe cannot explain itself, create itself, or sustain itself. I am following deductive reasoning to the ultimate conclusion: God.

But, there are other explanations outside of God - just because you don't want 'go there' doesn't mean those aren't alternatives. The idea that God 'kick started the universe' is darn hypothetical as well. Why not a previous universe, why not false vacuums, why not energy? They are all as plausible as "God".

I don’t believe I used eternity as a measure of time. Eternity is neither before nor after the universe. Eternity simply is. It’s a never-ending, single moment. Infinity, similar to eternity, cannot be fully described or expounded within the realm of time or matter since neither time nor matter is infinite. There is simply no way to fully articulate infinity in the physical universe. Indeed, the only reason our minds can grasp the concept of infinity is because our minds are not wholly material. Even still, our minds, though partly immaterial, are not infinite and thus they too cannot fully grasp the infinite though they can grasp the concept (along with other concepts which are by definition non-material).

There are differences between eternal and infinity though - you can't use them interchangabily-that is what it seemed as you were doing - infinity - immeasurable in time, but still 'of' time - eternal - outside of time.

Again, I’m just offering the standard picture of the universe which the sciences have to offer. But I wouldn’t say that this “doesn’t work” categorically speaking. Why can’t the immaterial God, who is existence itself, share His existence and create the universe? I think there are two reasons some people oppose this: (1) the immaterial cannot work upon or effect something material, and (2) the idea of the immaterial seems to be less than, or not as great as, the material. To the first problem I point to the fact that my immaterial will has directly caused my very material fingers to strike each key I have typed in this post. To the second, I say that the immaterial is actually far more "real" than the material. It’s like the chronos-kairos time example. Matter works simply on chronos (measurable time) but kairos connects one to the immaterial, giving one depth and meaning. Matter cannot run on kairos, but the soul can run on both. Thus the material may have length and width, so to speak, but the immaterial has ‘depth’ in addition to this. The immaterial is more, much more, than the mere material.

But once again - they are both needed - yin/yang - without the material - isn't the 'immaterial' null?

You didn't approach my yin/yang idea for male/female - why not? The idea of balance I think is very important.

I have even wondered about this in regards to God/Universe. Is there some sort of balance - a yin/yang relationship?

It is worth pointing out that there is a lot of overlap in those definitions of "transcendent"; they are not completely distinct from one another. Another point to consider, is the marginal distinction between the various definitions relevant to this discussion?

Also, the notion of transcendence does not simply have some "obscure" philosophical connotation, the notion stems from philosophy. Any understanding of transcendence that only views the philosophical connection as incidental is a false understanding of the idea.

As to the issue of reading your own ideas into someone else's words; the point I was making was not limited to only this discussion (or even this forum) and not to any one person in particular.

But - we are talking 'material' here - man/woman - not 'immaterial' or 'philosophical' - so I think going with the 'material' definition of Transcendent wasn't so far off shag -

 

[shagdrum]

But - we are talking 'material' here - man/woman - not 'immaterial' or 'philosophical' - so I think going with the 'material' definition of Transcendent wasn't so far off shag -

Transcendent means beyond the material world; specifically beyond, or above the physical world.

Also, "immaterial" does not equal "philosophical". Not sure if you are trying to equate the two but it is worth noting that philosophy is not something confined to immaterial concerns or issues. Economics is a prime example of philosophy as applied to the most basic of material concerns; scarce resources. Even science is rooted in certain philosophical precepts concerning understanding nature.

It seems to me that you may be trying to avoid the area of philosophy when this entire discussion starts at that point.

 

[foxpaws]

Transcendent means beyond the material world; specifically beyond, or above the physical world.starts at that point.

so shag - what would have you taken the phrase
"just as a man is transcendent of a woman"
to mean?

I went with 'above' - one of your definitions.

 

[Federali Aundy]

Sorry Fed - but before we can talk about this I need a common ground for what you meant by Transcendent when relating it to men/women

I thought I was pretty clear on this one:

Transcendent does not mean “above” but “outside” and the male gender participates in God’s masculinity insofar as a man acts upon a woman and enters into her from “outside” to produce new life in her. Woman is receptive to man just as the universe is receptive to God. I am not saying that men are better than woman but that the sexes participate in something far more cosmic and far more grand than modern society seems to think.

Initially the transcendancy I am speaking of is theological (i.e. "transcending the universe, time, etc. Compare immanent") but as it relates to man and woman I am speaking in the language of "participatio" that man and woman participate and reflect the reality of God's relation to the created order.

Furthermore, you should recall that I have already used this transcendant versus immanant language in this discussion:

The point is that if God exists outside of time and space, then we would speak of God in a masculine way (i.e. as “He”) but if God exists inside of time and space, as you have also said, then we would speak of God in a feminine way (i.e. as “She”). This is the reasoning behind the term “Mother Earth” – like a mother, the earth is near us and gives us life from below, nurturing and caring for us. Earth is immanent to us, not transcendent.

It may do you well to go back and re-read what I have said before making comments that force us to retread old ground.

 

[foxpaws]

Initially the transcendancy I am speaking of is theological (i.e. "transcending the universe, time, etc. Compare immanent") but as it relates to man and woman I am speaking in the language of "participatio" that man and woman participate and reflect the reality of God's relation to the created order.

So, now I am clear on this - man is 'outside' woman - well that is pretty obvious. So, you are getting rid of the entire hierarchy meaning that is often (in fact I would say almost always) associated with the word "Transcendent".

Or are you?

However are men and women 'equal' when it comes to top level as I stated before... We are human - in that we are equal. The most important thing that defines us isn't our gender, it is our 'human' quality.

Yin/yang. Your strength is not more important than my compassion. Different, not better.

But, you do equate God to Man as you equate Woman to Nature - however, Nature is subservient to God, in your 'world' - correct? Wouldn't that tend to have one draw the conclusion that Woman is subservient to Man?

 

[Federali Aundy]

So - you can see where I have problems with the something/something immediately explodes. I just don't see there not being a time lag between the two - it just doesn't work with physics.

Physics, and all the other sciences, attempt to explain what occurs when matter already exists - it does not have anything to say about how it came into existence. You are raising metaphysical questions, not scientific questions.

But, there are other explanations outside of God - just because you don't want 'go there' doesn't mean those aren't alternatives.

I'm actually perfectly fine with "going there" - I just think it adds another layer of unnecessary complexity to the conversation because ultimately we're going to have to go back to some primordial Big Bang of the multiverse (or whatever came "before" our universe's Big Bang). We will still run into the problem of matter's existence not being able to justify itself or give itself a foundation. Furthermore, there is no scientific backing for these other hypotheses and one simply puts them forward to avoid the God question. There is, however, deductive metaphysical reasons for God's existence. God is a bullet here that cannot be dodged even if one wants to add more layers and quirky theories in order to escape His transcendant reality.

There are differences between eternal and infinity though - you can't use them interchangabily-that is what it seemed as you were doing - infinity - immeasurable in time, but still 'of' time - eternal - outside of time.

My apologies if I appear to be using them interchangably. You might say that "infinity" is a concept that is unachievable in a non-divine sense. Neither man, who is part spirit and part matter, nor angels, who are pure spirit, can acheive the inifinite. The only being that can do so must be itself infinite (and spirtitual and partless). Being partly immaterial, we can experience eternity (timelessness), but we cannot fully experience or grasp infinity. Furthermore, since "infinity" is unacheivable in a non-divine sense, the universe (or multiverse) cannot be infinitely old. And since the universe is composed of finite matter, it cannot experience eternity which is by nature a spiritual reality (since to be timeless necessarily means to be partless).

You didn't approach my yin/yang idea for male/female - why not?

Well it was mostly because the time was approaching 2:00 AM and I had to be at work by 6:30 AM...

I have even wondered about this in regards to God/Universe. Is there some sort of balance - a yin/yang relationship?

The yin/yang approach will not work with God/universe precisely because it would make God depend on the universe and make the universe co-eternal with God. In a sense, there would be two gods. All this would do is diminish God by reducing Him in some way to the material universe. I can philosophically, scientifically, and theologically explain God's relation to the created order without diminishing Him in the process. So I think I'm gonna stick with logic on this one.

And it's not that God needs us but rather that we need Him. Or as the very first sentences of the Catholic catechism state: "God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church."

 

[Federali Aundy]

However are men and women 'equal' when it comes to top level as I stated before... We are human - in that we are equal. The most important thing that defines us isn't our gender, it is our 'human' quality.

Yep, men and women are equal but both have different roles.

But, you do equate God to Man as you equate Woman to Nature - however, Nature is subservient to God, in your 'world' - correct? Wouldn't that tend to have one draw the conclusion that Woman is subservient to Man?

Well I certainly do not equate God to Man and Woman to Nature, but rather that men and women participate and reflect these things. If you take that too far, however, it will lead you to think I am saying far more than I am.

I would also say that nature is not "subservient" to God. God isn't pulling nature's strings (or humanity's strings) just for the sake of making it and us be subservient. God has a goal for the universe and for us - in this way He serves us. Likewise, men are called to serve women. And really, both should serve each other while also embracing their own duties as men and women.

 

[foxpaws]

Yep, men and women are equal but both have different roles.

Thank you...

Well I certainly do not equate God to Man and Woman to Nature, but rather that men and women participate and reflect these things. If you take that too far, however, it will lead you to think I am saying far more than I am.

So I probably took this statement too far....

Woman is receptive to man just as the universe is receptive to God.

We are similar to God/Universe in the 'receptive' category... and the 'transcendent' quality (meaning outside)...

I would also say that nature is not "subservient" to God. God isn't pulling nature's strings (or humanity's strings) just for the sake of making it and us be subservient. God has a goal for the universe and for us - in this way He serves us. Likewise, men are called to serve women. And really, both should serve each other while also embracing their own duties as men and women.

So God and nature/universe are equal? yin/yang? Or if not - what is their relationship?

The yin/yang approach will not work with God/universe precisely because it would make God depend on the universe and make the universe co-eternal with God. In a sense, there would be two gods. All this would do is diminish God by reducing Him in some way to the material universe. I can philosophically, scientifically, and theologically explain God's relation to the created order without diminishing Him in the process. So I think I'm gonna stick with logic on this one.

you had given me this - but, man dies - woman carries on - that doesn't diminish the yin/yang of their relationship. God can be eternal without the universe being eternal - however they can still have a relationship - equal but different. One God - immaterial - the Universe - material.

 

[Federali Aundy]

So God and nature/universe are equal? yin/yang? Or if not - what is their relationship?

So if we can take the analogy too far one way then we can take it too far the other way as well. God is gong to be intrinsically greater than the universe because He is infinite and the unviverse, being material, is finite.

God created the universe to be a glorious reflection of Himself - but I also believe He made it (or part of it) to be a prison of sorts for fallen spirits (including any humans who are damned). My thinking is that the Big Bang occured at the moment Lucifer was cast out of heaven and made the ruler of this realm - and thus it would make sense that the universe is on its way to cold, isolated, atomized death and that there are a great deal of material/physical evils to be watchful for (i.e. asteroids and earthquakes, solar flares and floods). This is of course all theological - but it is not inconsistent with, or contrary to, the sciences.

I've noticed that when we forget about real evil that it is easy to eventually fall into the yin/yang conception of things. We have to remember that there is a beauty to protect and an evil to fight.

 

[hrmwrm]

It's amusing that you don't see the irony in your challenge. The Big Bang is completely supernatural, and has no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

really? you can show how the supernatural started it? physicists have been working on it all these years, and here you've had the answer all along?
please, do share your evidence. i'm sure it will change world thinking.

It's circular reasoning to demand scientific evidence to explain a supernatural event.

i'm just asking for your evidence of it as supernatural, as opposed to a natural one. since it's so obvious, it shouldn't be hard to prove.

but then, that was in reply aundy,

I don’t think evidence is the problem (indeed I could show you documented accounts of the miraculous),

and his statement here. so far, i've seen not even evidence.
never mind something that would come up to a skeptics standard, but absolutely nothing . i ask, no-one even tries.

 

[fossten]

i'm just asking for your evidence of it as supernatural, as opposed to a natural one. since it's so obvious, it shouldn't be hard to prove.

but then, that was in reply aundy,



and his statement here. so far, i've seen not even evidence.
never mind something that would come up to a skeptics standard, but absolutely nothing . i ask, no-one even tries.

You're literally demanding that I prove that you have no evidence for the Big Bang. You're a parody of yourself.

Show me one piece of evidence. Please.

 

[hrmwrm]

You're literally demanding that I prove that you have no evidence for the Big Bang.

no, i'm asking you to show your evidence for the supernatural. you said the big bang was a supernatural event. if it's that obvious, you should have no problem.
but it's nice you agree that the big bang happened.

 

[fossten]

no, i'm asking you to show your evidence for the supernatural. you said the big bang was a supernatural event. if it's that obvious, you should have no problem.
but it's nice you agree that the big bang happened.

You asking that is circular reasoning. And no, I didn't agree to that. You're a child.

 

[foxpaws]

So if we can take the analogy too far one way then we can take it too far the other way as well. God is gong to be intrinsically greater than the universe because He is infinite and the unviverse, being material, is finite.

This universe is finite - but is it just a long line of universes? I think God needs the universe to complete him - infinite/finite, material/immaterial. It works - However you think that by making a circle complete - it lessens the parts - that because I think God needs/is in the universe it makes him 'less'. I see it as just the opposite. By completing the circle - it makes both better. God without the universe - why? The universe with no God - terrible.

God created the universe to be a glorious reflection of Himself - but I also believe He made it (or part of it) to be a prison of sorts for fallen spirits (including any humans who are damned). My thinking is that the Big Bang occured at the moment Lucifer was cast out of heaven and made the ruler of this realm - and thus it would make sense that the universe is on its way to cold, isolated, atomized death and that there are a great deal of material/physical evils to be watchful for (i.e. asteroids and earthquakes, solar flares and floods). This is of course all theological - but it is not inconsistent with, or contrary to, the sciences.

Well, Lucifer via scientific proof is stretching it... smile.

I think the universe and God are intertwined - Not that parts of the universe are Hell... Isn't that where you are going Fed - If Lucifer rules the universe - than the universe is Hell. God didn't create Humans within Hell. We are his children, why would he condemn us to hell, even before we were 'born'.

God 'needs' the universe - it wouldn't exist if he didn't - he would have destroyed it. God and the Universe are linked, in many ways - but not through Lucifer - through Jesus....

My theology - but certainly inconsistent with yours.

I've noticed that when we forget about real evil that it is easy to eventually fall into the yin/yang conception of things. We have to remember that there is a beauty to protect and an evil to fight.

beauty to protect/evil to fight - yin/yang - good/bad

 

[Federali Aundy]

This universe is finite

I am super glad we can now agree on this one!

but is [the universe] just a long line of universes?

Well, two things should be said here:

1) There could exist other universes that have given rise to yet another universe (such as ours).

2) Given point one (i.e. that our universe could have its raw material origins in another universe), this universe itself could not be "just a long line of universes" as if it is not in any way distinct from another universe from which it comes.

It is important to note that the laws of logic still apply to these other universes and thus we are still pushed back to the primordial universe which itself requires metaphysical justification.

Well, Lucifer via scientific proof is stretching it

I didn't claim scientific proof here. What I claimed is that the existence of Lucifer (and the angels) does not run contrary to scientific discovery or the laws of reason. People have called angels (and God) "unscientific" because they look at the universe through the eyes of materialist atheism and categorically deny anything that is immaterial.

I think the universe and God are intertwined...God 'needs' the universe - it wouldn't exist if he didn't

I would agree that God has a connection to the universe. In fact logically He must or else the universe could not exist. My claim is that His existence is not "in" the universe and He does not depend on the universe in any way. He is absolute and perfect in Himself. He made the universe for the same reason an artist paints: love.

...Not that parts of the universe are Hell... Isn't that where you are going Fed - If Lucifer rules the universe - than the universe is Hell.

That's actually not where I'm going. To think this way would be to think that the universe is intrinsically evil and in such an absolute sense that it would almost lead back to your more extreme yin/yang, two gods view. I believe that matter by itself is a perfect image of death: isolated, cold, and existing in many seperate parts. To cast Lucifer into a material realm that is befitting to the death he has chosen only makes sense. The vast majoriy of the universe is on its way to death - but God has chosen this little blue planet to raise up life and bring into beings a race of part-spirit, part-matter (humans) who can strike the final blow to once high and holy creatures (the fallen angels).

beauty to protect/evil to fight - yin/yang - good/bad

I do not deny that yin and yang have some truth. I just do not absolutize them in the way you do. Here we run back into the matter of going too far in one way or another.

 

[foxpaws]

I am super glad we can now agree on this one!

I don't think I ever stated that it wasn't - it always has had a end point - and a beginning point - the universe started at the bang - the 'impetuous' has been our sticking point.

Well, two things should be said here:
1) There could exist other universes that have given rise to yet another universe (such as ours).

2) Given point one (i.e. that our universe could have its raw material origins in another universe), this universe itself could not be "just a long line of universes" as if it is not in any way distinct from another universe from which it comes.

I think we would be quite a bit different than previous/coming universes - chaos theory...

It is important to note that the laws of logic still apply to these other universes and thus we are still pushed back to the primordial universe which itself requires metaphysical justification.

Why do our laws of logic still apply to universes that might not be 'matter' - they could be 'anti-matter' universes - could be where all of our antimatter ended up. Universes could be cyclic in a circle - time means nothing outside the universes - they could just feed upon themselves.

I didn't claim scientific proof here. What I claimed is that the existence of Lucifer (and the angels) does not run contrary to scientific discovery or the laws of reason. People have called angels (and God) "unscientific" because they look at the universe through the eyes of materialist atheism and categorically deny anything that is immaterial.

Why does God have to be 'scientific'?

That's actually not where I'm going. To think this way would be to think that the universe is intrinsically evil and in such an absolute sense that it would almost lead back to your more extreme yin/yang, two gods view. I believe that matter by itself is a perfect image of death: isolated, cold, and existing in many seperate parts. To cast Lucifer into a material realm that is befitting to the death he has chosen only makes sense. The vast majoriy of the universe is on its way to death - but God has chosen this little blue planet to raise up life and bring into beings a race of part-spirit, part-matter (humans) who can strike the final blow to once high and holy creatures (the fallen angels).

We could be one of many, many planets, in a series of Universes that God has chosen - infinite perhaps -

I still think without Universe, God isn't complete. He needed the material - to finish the Trinity.

 

[fossten]

We could be one of many, many planets, in a series of Universes that God has chosen - infinite perhaps -

I still think without Universe, God isn't complete. He needed the material - to finish the Trinity.

You're insane. :bowrofl:

 

[hrmwrm]

You asking that is circular reasoning.

no, it's not. but i thought so. make claims, till asked to back them up, then play stupid.

And no, I didn't agree to that.

really?

The Big Bang is completely supernatural,

sounds like ya did to me.

and then, for a young earth, you'd have to refute geology, which is something else you haven't touched.
the heaps of evidence for an old earth are undeniable.

 

[cammerfe]

and then, for a young earth, you'd have to refute geology, which is something else you haven't touched.
the heaps of evidence for an old earth are undeniable.

You and I don't often agree, but on this---well, you know about the stopped clock!

There's a well-meaning cluck who runs raft trips in the Grand Canyon so he can point out structures he claims prove that the entire canyon was formed practically instantaneously.

In essence, people will believe whatever they want to believe.

KS

 

[fossten]

and then, for a young earth, you'd have to refute geology, which is something else you haven't touched.
the heaps of evidence for an old earth are undeniable.

The funny part is that you haven't a) refuted anything yourself or b) offered any evidence for evolution.

 

[04SCTLS]

The funny part is that you haven't a) refuted anything yourself or b) offered any evidence for evolution.

So in the end it comes down to an opinion of the Big Bang as a mysterious natural event or God launching creation and warping time.

 

[hrmwrm]

a) refuted anything yourself or

yes, i have.

b) offered any evidence for evolution.

i don't need evolution to prove an old earth. geology itself is more than enough.

In essence, people will believe whatever they want to believe.

true. people will resolve any hard evidence to fit their ideals.
although how they resolve such tremendously weighted evidence so as to dismiss it is unfathomable.

although you can't concretely prove god or natural ideals, an old earth is next to impossible to mistake.
the earth itself doesn't lie.