That's your problem, right there. You don't use evidenced based arguments and you accept anyone's religious ideas so long as they support yours. Hence you turn to creationist nonsense.Come to find out they is plenty he is not telling us. We post it here and it is either ignored or dismissed as Creation Science. From my POV it is legitimate peer review.
Baby, that's not "legitimate peer review." That's creationist nonsense.
If you want real physics that can critique Polymath (a physicist) then use real science journals - read physics journals, learn their arguments and use them.
The same with biological science. Use real science if you want to provide legitimate critique.
Some idiot who doesn't understand science and is willing to be dishonest for his religion doesn't constitute anything remotely like "peer review."
If it's not science, you're not arguing against science. You're just blowing so much smoke.