Oh my, Pete... "he is not obligated to prove himself to those who dont want to believe."

My attitude, as you may have gathered, is that I don't like the IDEA of a capricious god who gave me a mind capable of comprehension and reason, yet expects me to blindly believe 'what I am told' by others regarding creation, an 'afterlife' and morality.

I have written before about circular reasoning and statements which contain their conclusions within their statement. "He is not obligated.." IS an assertion which assumes there is a "He" who exists and expects our belief.
That is what is at issue! "You must believe in order to believe" is not a comfortable feeling for most people.

"former supposed proofs of dawinism are collecting in the evolutionary dustbin."... exceeded a hundred times by carefully researched and documented evidence which DOES support the basic positions of 'Darwinism'...which itself is not a simple theory to be explained in a few paragraphs.

Those "former supposed proofs" have been extensively explored by Stephen Jay Gould in several books ...along with detailed clarifications of why some notions were flawed and why other ideas were correct, but incomplete.
I cannot possibly type fast enough to show you the fabric of Gould's overwhelming understanding of the complex history of research into evolution and the related biology, archeology, paleontology...etc. Men used to make wild guesses about details & causality based on instinctive notions that Darwin had some good ideas...some of those guesses have indeed been consigned to the dustbin, but replaced by BETTER theory as new evidence is collected. AT NO TIME is the core evidence close to being discarded... except by those who assume it MUST be wrong if it doesn't agree with some archaic scripture.

"...there is so much evidence from dino bones collecting that supports a much younger age than the 65 MYO evolutionists claim."

It seems some have a very different idea of how to define 'evidence'. I could do a search and find more evidence than you could read in a lifetime... you seem to get most of your assertions from creation.com and a couple of similar sites....and THEY make their claims based on out-of-context quibbling about interpretations of doubtful data.
Anyone who wants to refute basic scientific research needs to refute it BASED on science....