I need help with refutations for this

[Eleazar]

Which has been so thoroughly refuted that the mere fact you suggest it shows how far from contemporary epistemology you are.

Another person who assumes that I accept every argument I refer to. Believe it or not, there are actually theists who don't think every argument for the rationality of theism is successful! Rarely is anything in contemporary epistemology "refuted" (in the same way that rarely is anything proved) - critiqued and challenged with counterarguments certainly, but a full-fled refutation is hard to find. Which philosophers in your view have provided this "refutation"?

(It is often forgotten as well that "Reformed Epistemology" was originally a polemic against the previously-reigning evidentialist paradigm, and so its primary purpose was to argue against evidentialism rather than for the rationality of theism.)

utter nonsense, a rational belief is one that is epistemically justified, plantinga's epistemology is subject to so many refutations that it's barely clear where to start - the Great Pumpkin Objection is my favorite though, his epistemology makes such a belief "properly basic".

"Rationality" and "justification" are pretty much synonymous in Plantinga's work so I don't really get your point. The Great Pumpkin Objection is certainly a fun one, but it's one that Plantinga brings up in his own work!! So if you think Plantinga managed to refute his own view, I'd be interested in knowing why you think that.

And which demonstrates his lack of concern for proper form in a Bayesian argument, amongst other things, this is even more thoroughly refuted that his epistemology.

Again, refuted by whom? In what ways do you consider Plantinga to misunderstand how Bayesian argumentation works?