I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "real scientific journals"
Basically, a journal which publishes papers after subjecting them to peer review, and has the goal of being critically and impartial. By their very definition, these Creationist 'journals'
aren't peer-reviewed, as they don't subject the papers to review from their peers (despite the 'peer-reviewed' moniker).
and whether you have any criticisms of their peer review process.
Certainly, though not as many as you, I'd wager.
The criticism is based upon their world view. When you read their articles, they acknowledge the world view and deal with the FACTS and EVIDENCE.
Allegedly.
I will acknowledge that since the 70s the anti-Creationists have gotten more subtle and less honest about their biases and rejections of the evidence. Do a search for Jenkins, Fischbach and Sturrock on dating issues. The decay "constants" are not so constant, but none of the anti-Creationists want to acknowledge the impications of that.
On the contrary, the implications of variable decay rates have massive consequences for particles physics - if atoms decayed at different rates in the past, then modern theories of physics simply wouldn't work. Moreover, if radiometric dating had this flaw that made it unreliable in the distant past, don't you think it's just a bit of a coincidence that all the various, mechanically independent dating techniques (ice-core samples, dendochronology, radiometrics, etc), when applied properly (e.g., taking into account the reservoir effect), give the same dates, all the way back through history?
What evidence do you want to actually discuss -- the studies of hyperconcentrated sedimentation from transgressing waters through levy breaches during Katrina, Grand Canyon, marine and terrestrial plant fossils found together, polystrate plants, the movement of the island of Japan from a short duration earthquake, and what aspect of genetics might you like to discuss?
I'm a physicist, so I'd be most at home there, though I'm happy to go as far afield as you wish.
So, tell me, what do you know about radiometric dating? Do you know what determines decay constants, and what would be the repercussion if they were variable?
World wide floods where one family survived? In 200 narratives from different cultures here are the stats.
Is there a favored family? 88% [/font]
Were they forewarned? 66% [/font]
Is flood due to wickedness of man? 66% [/font]
Is catastrophe only a flood? 95% [/font]
Was flood global? 95% [/font]
Is survival due to a boat? 70% [/font]
Were animals also saved? 67% [/font]
Did animals play any part? 73% [/font]
Did survivors land on a mountain? 57% [/font]
Was the geography local? 82% [/font]
Were birds sent out? 35% [/font]
Was the rainbow mentioned? 7% [/font]
Did survivors offer a sacrifice? 13% [/font]
Were specifically eight persons saved? 9% [/font]
So, 82% of cultures believed the geography was local. Does that mean that Noah lived in the Middle-East, Asia, and America, all at once?
Moreover, comparative anthropology throws up all sorts of cultural correlations. How many cultures have polytheisms? How many polytheisms have deities of fertility? How many polytheisms have deities of fertility who bear human children?
I mean, it couldn't be that love is something universal to humans. Just like how floods only ever happen in the Middle-East.
What is your evidence for "continual occupation" before about 5000 years ago? The Chinese continuously numbered calendar -- a little over 4700 years. I think that is the longest.
The most ancient and continuously inhabited places on Earth include Damascus (9000 BCE;
source), Byblos (at least 5000 BCE;
source) Jericho (its walls alone date to at least 6800 BCE;
source), Ghor (5000 BCE;
source)... not only do these places predate the flood, most predate the creation of the world!
