As a practicing scientist who has performed thousands of experiments, I know what it is like to design a "tight" experiment, one that you know will give you correct information. Sure I might have an idea that the results should be 42 +/- 5, but if the results come out to be 200 +/- 10, then I have to revise my ideas. Data are data and not subject to revision from a "tight" experiment.
But a Creation Scientist is put into an uncomfortable spot. Say he sends off a sample that he thinks should be 4500 years ago at the time of Noah, and the result comes back 85,000,000 years ago. What does he do? He cannot change his idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old. He is stuck there by faith. So does he send the sample off to another place for dating? And the answer is again 85,000,000. Now he is in big trouble. He either has to throw out the data or attack the method. But if the experiment is "tight" (and its design is his and subject to scrutiny by scientists), the method will hold up. So he throws it out, saying, in effect, that his experimental design was no good.
But, more typically, the Creation Scientist never allows an experiment that could contradict his preconceived idea. He just never does any science. I think deep down inside all Creation Scientists know the data will never support their ideas, so they are put into a position of never doing any experiments. Instead they try to chew holes in other's work.
They look bad, silly and petty and never address the problems they think are so important. There's a lot of smoke and hand waving, but nothing ever comes out of the Creation Scientist's "experiments".