But you're not. You are espousing a religious belief without scientific evidence.
...the problem is that the scientific community has become an atheists club and has been shutting out any data that might suggest the existance of God from the peer-review process.
Do you have evidence to support your claims? The problem we generally see with creationists is that they make all sorts of claims, which they want scientists to take seriously, but they are unable to support those claims with any scientific evidence.
To date, they have presented no scientific evidence documenting the supernatural. Why should this lack of evidence be treated as evidence? Why should your unsupported claims be accorded any weight in peer-review?
Why should I believe this world is 50 million years old? All it is is an educated guess, and a weak one at that. I’m supposed to take seriously a scientist’s GUESS at how old the world is? Where’s YOUR scientific proof? This argument between science and creation theory works both ways.