You need to read it first. Mentioning the fact of Ad Hominem is not pleading anything. You lost it after this point.
Yep, true to form Ad Hominem appears.
You really haven't followed me at all right from the start, have you? You so desperately want to tar me with that brush that you just can't see that it's all about your arguments, and not you personally.
Here it is, and I only regret that I can't think of a way to phrase this monosyllabically - you are engaging in the fallacy of special pleading every time you wade in to bash the legitimacy of the scientific method, and intersperse it with posts wherein you look to some article of scientific research to bolster your own position. This is classic special pleading, insofar as your argument is nothing more than you attempting to construct a case that the scientific method is flawed and invalid, except where it produces results that jibe with your personal notions of how the universe ought to be.
The colloquial term for such argumentation is a double-standard, or hypocrisy. You arguments on that thread were hypocritical, because they employed a double-standard with respect to the legitimacy of the scientific method. This is the fallacy of special pleading, where you make some argument that the general principle in operation should not apply to you for some reason.
Either you are right, and the scientific method is flawed and worthless, in which case every single scientific article you have ever disingenuously posted in support of your position is equally worthless. Or, you are wrong, and the scientific method is not flawed, in which case your arguments attempting to attack evolution by attacking the scientific method are invalid and worthless. Take your pick.