"IMO ,shimrod the reviewing system for submissions is philosophically dismissive of creationist scientists. the scientists in galileos day were slow catching on as well ."

So . . . the peer review system is at fault because papers supporting your faith don't get published in journals?

Here's the rub: if creationists want to take on science they have to use scientific methods, they have to do it in the framework that hundreds of thousands of scientists have arrived at by common consensus over the centuries. If they don't then it isn't science, as none of us engaged in research can simply make up a new way of assessing the merit of the work of others to fit in with our own viewpoints.

Also, many papers are rejected for a whole host of reasons and many of these are by experienced, respectable and honest scientists. The truth is if there are flaws in the method or the data or any other number of reasons the paper may well be rejected; very few papers ever get accepted without some revisions.

So if your 'creationist scientists' are not getting papers published, there must be a flaw in the way they are doing the research.

One more thing, about this quote:

"seem, stu that you are confirming my prediction that you,s will continue to stretch scientific findings so as to defend what cannot be verified by the scientific method."

I take exception to being called a liar or having my integrity questioned by someone who neither knows me or constantly refuses to engage in reasoned debate, or back it up with any meaningful data (where are these supposed papers for example?). You might think all scientists are liars, but you are very, very wrong and you would do well to show some of that fabled christian understanding to people who don't share your opinion; you might think I am a fat twat in league with the devil himself and you might think I am deluded and wrong, but I do not lie or attempt to deceive, as my work is about the fundamental nature of the universe we live in.