There's a snag. pete is, I am sure, liable to go away thinking creationism passed another test of doubting Thomas syndrome and therefore creationism must be true

Possibly so. I am not saying I am not trying to win the argument, simply that winning it is not the main goal!

My personal belief is that when a creationist really thinks about what creationism implies they will conclude that it really cannot bear the weight of the number of assumptions and special cases required. As a result, they will come to the conclusion it cannot be the answer. But that's my opinion, not fact. However, I don't think an outside person can convince them of that: they have to come to that conclusion by themselves. So any number of fossils and carbon dating examples and inconsistancies we point out don't make much of an impression. What does is when they find an inconsistancy or other problem themselves.