And it is as evidenced by the widely incompatible dating information reported by the system. I have pointed to examples of this that I can cite information on. Or you can look at Hovind's productions, Brown's productions, etc and so on because they all address it. You'd probably say - oh no, they get it all wrong. Doesn't hold water but that's what I expect. They can point to countless examples of inaccuracy and outright bunk figures. It only takes a few to sink it - as it happens, there are more than a few examples. They're rampant and plentiful.
astronomy would have to be wrong about the age and structure of the universe
No big leap, The speed of light from my understanding has been slowed to 1mph in the lab recently. That pretty much destroys much of science's guessing about distance to stars. If you can't garauntee a constant speed or that nothing can effectively slow light speed, you've no practical way of measuring distance or much of anything else. Red shift is also under attack from within the community right now. It isn't as though science is some grand fortress that's never wrong - quite the opposite. They're more often wrong to the point it's newsworthy if they get something right.
geology would have to be wrong in almost every detail
No, I'd take serious issue with that. I have a friend here locally who is a geologist and he thinks you guys are nuts. He isn't a Christian; but, he thinks ya'll are nutso.
biology would have to have made its last hundred years of advances based on a completely incorrect paradigm
Again, false, biology doesn't depend on evolution for anything save perhaps for funding. One can explore the Gnome without any reference to evolution - not a problem. It can explore cures for disease and the like with only a knowledge of limits of diversity which are readily apparent from farming. No evolution involved in that. Just the nature of life in general.. it doesn't evolve. It diversifies within limits; but, it doesn't evolve. Matter of symantics to you; but, a clear distinction.
and you would have to be smarter and more knowledgeable than the tens of thousands of scientists
Not too hard. Galileo was, The wright brothers were, Ben Franklin was, Edison was, etc. Appeals to consensus opinion is fallacy and you know it. It's also quite easy to blow out of the water with endless examples - which tells me you're really reaching because I'm sure you know better.
I appreciate your detailed response. I do not post with the expectation of convincing the opposition. I post for the hundreds of non-posting lurkers. I think you have answered some of the detailed questions I posed in #565.
I particularly appreciate your self-evaluation. That is priceless.
Leave us not omit the mantra, "Science is self-correcting," which is an admission of the speculative nature of "scientific" speculation and its resultant errors. Science is not self-correcting regarding the atomic number of elements and other such known quantities. It is only self-correcting in relation to unknown quantities, much as a little kid in the principle's office is self correcting when caught in a lie.
They all built upon the scientific base formed by their predecessors and peers unlike YEC's which find all science to be false.