On your astronomy posts I have found no problems. However with the next sentence in your post I have a problem:
The caveat is that it must be from a peer-reviewed source such as "THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL", not some unsubstantiated statements from a creationist (or other) web site.
Considering that the present article was written by the editor of an evolutionist peer-reviewed magazine, the request by evolutionists that contrary statements be backed up by such is pretty meaningless. Clearly there is lots of drivel in such journals and very biased ones at that as this article and a recent article by the editor of Scientific American shows. Anyways, science is about facts not degrees or where it is published.
“Facts” is not the word I would have used. “Models” (IMHO) is probably closer to the mark. However, peer review does keep every "hair-brained/crackpot" idea from flooding the journals to the point of not being able to share pertinent data between peers and the rest of the world.