We are talking about a bet Gfs. you can lose a bet if you make an unwise one,

I would accept pete's challenge except that he is trying to change the terms. I said" told of the discoveries that supported it one after another."

he wants to change that to.

" Darwinian proofs being still convincingly offered"

As I have no idea what a Darwinian proof might be and since the statement I made was about the way the evidence was prevented, not precisely what evidence, I win the bet.

If pete wants to waste my time presenting pseudo-scientific gibberish at me all I can say is that I don't believe there is any evidence that trilobites and dinosaurs coexisted. It does not say so in the Bible and that his guesses as to what happened in far pre-history are far less informed than, say Dawkins'.