Right, just like darwinian evolution is rationalized to fit data. I realise it's not a specific narrative, but still it must be adhered to by any scientist in the mainstream.
That's exactly the problem. Evolutionary theory is rationalized to fit the data, whereas YECism rationalizes the data to fit the Biblical narrative. Scientific methodology itself is the process of rationalizing explanations to fit the available observational data. I will leave it to you to explain how a field that attempts to fit the data to an existing narrative is scientific.
"Decades of research" is too broad a statement. Anyway, I could in turn point out decades of research on creation, in response to your claim.
Granted, the sheer amount of research performed is not meaningful in and of itself. It's the quality of the research that matters, as well as the goal to which it's applied. Concerning that, YECism, to the best of my knowledge, has as its goal to show that the Biblical narrative is an accurate description of the creation of the world, whereas the various fields of science have as their goal to understand the universe on its own terms. I will leave it to you to explain how the former is a more worthwhile goal than the latter.
"The majority of scientists" are not the ones who define truth, just like the majority used to believe creation. "No scientist worth their salt" sounds like the No true Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of PhDs who would agree that evolution is incorrect, what makes you say they are not worth their salt?
Are these other PhDs biologists who have studied evolutionary theory as part of their field? If they are not, then their PhDs do not qualify them to have an expert opinion on the subject.
In any case,, scientific methodology is not about proving things correct in the first place. You can't prove that something is correct via science, you prove that it fits the available data. If a scientist claims that science is about proving things correct, then yes, I do question whether they are worth their salt, because to get such a basic tenet of scientific methodology wrong suggests that they do not have a good grasp on the subject.
There is reason to doubt evolution, just like there is reason to doubt c-14 dating methods, at least on the high end. For example, they require the presumption that the amount of earth biomass has been constant in order to keep a constant amount in living tissue, the rate of decay has always been the same, there has been no change in the amount of c-14 in the atmosphere, etc, all of which are unproved and unprovable.
If you actually had evidence that showed that these things were not constant in the past, then you would have a point. But barring evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that biomass has been constant, the rate of decay has not changed significantly, etc. But without that evidence, such statements are only speculative and thus useless.
It's not ad hominem if it's not an attempt to disprove an argument. And to be fair, going around not questioning things is, well, stupid. It fits the definition of ignorance.
Please do not waste my time by trying to play games with semantics. Making insulting comments about a person or a group as part of an argument is by definition ad hominem, because you are making the focus on the people you are attacking as part of your point. You can make the point about an attitude without attacking people in the process; please do so in the future.
I would call evolution a pseudoscience, indeed. And yes I have questioned whether the bible is false, tho I'm not sure how you differentiate between other questions about it. I suppose I should ask, have you questioned whether evolution is false?
Yes, I have. However, evolution explains the way things work too well to be a made-up pseudoscience, and it does not require that other branches of science be made to fit it or else they must be false. This is not the case with YECism, as your first post in this thread indicated. It is simply incompatible with certain aspects of science (evolution for one, but there are others). In order to be a YECist, you have to consider those things false; if you do not, you cannot by definition be a YECist, because they are incompatible with the Biblical narrative that YECism holds as true.
Are you referring to evolutionary biology? I have heard of at least one. But you're right, the fact is there aren't many in any fields. On the other hand, this doesn't make them wrong.
It isn't just evolutionary biology, but yes, the key point is that there are not many YECists in science. And while that does not make them wrong, it certainly does not help prove them right - which is more important.
Maybe this is the biggest issue. There is a limit to speciation, as any breeder will tell you. All cats came from the same ancestors, all dogs came from the same ancestors, all horses and zebras came from the same ancestors, but they are all the same type of animal, really. They are a different species by name, but none of them come any closer to being something other than what they are i.e. from dog to cat, from horse to tiger. Sometimes they change enough so that they cannot mate, but they stay the same type of animal.
But this argument does not contradict the idea that there could have been a parent organism that had traits of both cats and dogs (for example), and ultimately diverged into cats and dogs (and so on). Certainly, there is not such an organism now, but that does not mean anything.That is the problem here - YEC asserts that this cannot have been the case, without actual evidence as far as I can tell. But other things, such as the similarity between DNA of similar types of animals compared to the similarity of traits between those same animals, strongly suggest otherwise.
Well, here's an example. Let's say I asked you to give me a list of animals that you would consider reptilian. Would you include birds on it? Probably not. Yet birds do share traits with reptiles (for example, they both have scales, and bird feathers are made by the same tissues that produce scales in reptiles), they both lay shelled eggs, and their organ and bone structures are similar to each other. They have diverged far more than the minor differences between breeds of dogs, but they've had much longer to do it in. The point being that if you can have organisms that have diverged that much, there's no reason to think that it's impossible that cats and dogs didn't originally share a similar ancestry, given that the similarities between them (generally speaking) are far greater than the similarities between reptiles and birds.