Does God Exist?
Our insistence on the Absolute Existence of God, although a bit tongue-in-cheek, has also drawn some comment in Twitter. Here is the whole conversation.
M: That's what makes it more of a delusion. Humans created that give each other comfort. Like Santa and the tooth fairy to kids.
R: Comment was made in another language.
M: Not true. It's comforting it's poetic but it's not true. Doesn't make it true just because it is comforting.
R: Comment was made in another language.
M: I see the evidence that refutes the existence of god. Thus, he doesn't exist.
HS: This evidence is faulty because your sight is not ubiquitous. Your evidence is merely your opinion. You’re welcome to it.
M: "This evidence" pointing to what?
HS: Evidence that refutes the existence of God.
M: So you don't believe in evolution despite the clear evidence? What about how old the earth is?
A Fundamental Error
You have committed the logical error of jumping to a conclusion. Actually, I do believe in scientific, special evolution.
The Necessity of Defining Terms
Since you have failed to define your terms, I shall define them for you.
There are two kinds of evolution. Scientists, Christians, and many others frequently fail to distinguish these two kinds of evolution: which leads to a great deal of error and unnecessary misunderstanding. While we are on the subject of evolution, there are also at least two major forms of Darwinism, which need to be addressed separately as well.
Special evolution is that scientific theory which claims that random variation does occur within species. This theory is easily demonstrated and is fundamental to our contemporary understanding of all biology and zoology studies. The experimental evidence is so often experimentally replicated and repeated that one would be a colossal fool to doubt it. The odds of false conclusion are in the trillions to one or better. Denying the existence of special evolution is a statistical error of the magnitude of claiming that the Sun doesn’t exist.
General evolution is that speculative theory which claims that random variation occurs outside of species and across species boundaries. Granted that the scientific definition and identification of exactly what a species is, is no small matter. This theory has never been demonstrated and it is fundamental to nothing. The experimental evidence is so completely absent that one would be a colossal fool to believe it.
One Source of Debate
Much of Darwin’s struggles over the impossibility and possibility of variation crossing species boundaries is driven by a theological question. Nowadays, Presbyterian and Reformed Christians are pretty much the only ones that pay attention to these things. The question is, “Does variation among creatures stem from God’s Creation or from God’s Providence?” This is no easy question to answer; in fact, it is impossible to answer with any human certainty. For Darwin this proved perplexing when so many of his observations as a naturalist seemed to defy the conventional wisdom of his day. Darwin was hardly the only naturalist of his day to be so perplexed, and rightly so.
We, as well, should observe this seemingly endlessness of myriad variegation and stand in awe of its majesty. Are the many variations of Finches (the bird) in all their wondrous variegation due to God’s Creation or God’s Providence? It seems preposterous to believe that God created each of these distinct variations as distinct individuals in the Garden of Eden, so long ago. When we consider that these variations come and go randomly within the species we find it difficult to believe that each was created distinctly.
Nevertheless, we know, or think we do, what Darwin did not know: that genetic code hidden in DNA strands (evidently) within all living beings allows for a great deal of seemingly random variability. There is simply no good reason not to believe that such variability did not come from an intelligent designer we call God.
Darwin speculated about many things based on his puzzling observations. Intelligent informed speculation is what scientists do. This is what inductive reasoning is. Hopefully, a scientist has observations with which to begin. In general, man has three kinds of reasoning available: abduction, deduction, and induction.  Abduction is that field of logic where one starts without any relevant observation whatsoever and is compelled to formulate a first hypothesis based only on raw guess or speculation. No one wants to be caught in this predicament for very long, even though it happens to us all. Deduction is that field of logic where one starts with well-established guidelines and works forward. Engineering and medicine are common examples. Induction is that field of logic where one starts with observations, carefully constructs a hypothesis, and proceeds with many, many experiments with all their replications and repetitions until the hypothesis is either probably established or disproved. If no substantiating evidence is forthcoming, the hypothesis is abandoned as a lost cause, and the scientist moves on to new quests. Darwin's many speculations make him an excellent inquisitive scientist. They make him neither inerrant nor anti-Christian. The fact that Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey, not far from Sir Isaac Newton, ought to warn us not to falsely accuse Darwin of wrongdoing. It also ought to serve to remind us that most of this wonderful world of scientific discovery is due to inquisitive Christians, who never lost their sense of awe over God’s Created Universe.
Social Darwinism is that field of speculative philosophy, which asserts the superiority of various aspects of humanity, and is falsely attributed to Darwin. Social Darwinism has led to many destructive and evil movements and corrupt social abuses: for example, the false claims that men are superior to women; one race is superior to another; etc.... It has led to movements of ethnic cleansing, racial extermination, and widespread prejudicial abuses. It explains much of Adolph Hitler’s rise to power, many of the pogroms found in Communism, along with the cruel suppression of American blacks, Germans, Hispanics, Indians, Japanese, etc. It results in people who continue to fight the Civil War, WWII, and other conflicts. It caused the denial to many of equal opportunity at law, as well as their resultant poverty. Even so, it is still commonly found in practice among us.
How Old is the Earth?
Only God knows how old the earth is. I find it a difficult fact of life to choke down, that otherwise credible scientists have loaned their voices to this useless speculation. All of the so called, reigning theories: namely, Big Bang and/or any other are just a load of speculative garbage. We should abstain from discussing what we cannot and do not know. To formulate a credible scientific theory of origins requires a credible scientific observer, an eyewitness.
Philosophically, there is only One such credible scientific observer possible. Since you, sir, cannot possibly see or hear Him, you are left without any reasonable solution. Since your eyes and ears are physically incapable of searching anywhere and everywhere in time or space, you are incapable of solving your own riddle.
Any evidence that I might produce to the contrary will only fall on deaf ears, so you are doomed to die without knowing any answer, but only an endless and infinite uncertainty. Sorry, there is no answer for your predicament; it is hopelessly lost in the infinite void, the abyss. Sorry.
 For a thorough discussion of the Scientific Method please see http://swantec.blogspot.com/2012/09/false-science-1.html
 The ever-popular Elementary TV series in which Sherlock claims to deduce is incorrect. Sherlock induces, but if he said that, no one would know about what Sherlock is talking. It is, after all, a minor aggravation in the popular misuse of words to which we all fall guilty somewhere or other.
 The well-informed student of logic will not neglect the exploration of apophatic and cataphatic reasoning, the causes and kinds of logical error or failure, and the full-orbed pursuit of statistical probabilities. Since this path is strewn with so much error we all ought to listen carefully to the warnings expressed by O’Connor, Rory, Friends, Followers and the Future, City Lights Bookstore, San Francisco, 2012, 285 pages; and by Seife, Charles, Proofiness, Viking, New York, 2010, 295 pages.
 For example: http://swantec.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-absolute-existence-of-god-1.html, http://swantec.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-absolute-existence-of-god-2.html, http://swantec.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-absolute-existence-of-god-3.html. The very credible evidence is found in the Old Testament, but I have no hope whatsoever of ever getting folks like this to even read the Old Testament, let alone believe it. For those who will believe it, the evidence has been there for thousands of years for all to examine. If you will, come and meet the Glory, Three Living Persons who love you and seek your love in return.