"..your arguments are ... that it must be true, because most scientists say so."

That's a total misunderstanding of what I say, and what scientists in general think. You continue to warp the meaning of "argument from authority".

One- It is not 'necessarily' true, but if one is doing science, is is best to follow where the tests, measurements and analysis leads in the process of taking a theory and seeing if it stands up to scrutiny. What "most scientists say" is where the research leads. If that changes, they say something a bit different. They do not simply all march in orderly files to each new idea, they double-check each other... and themselves, and *as a group* they take seriously evidence that seems to be a problem... such as soft tissue in old bones. It turned out to be a rare instance where preservation happened in ways that surprised them, but once checked & double checked, it all made sense.... to everyone except those who had a vested interest in NOT having it make sense.

When evaluating complex data and overlapping fields of study, isn't it useful to know that "most scientists" are in basic agreement? Why do you want to clutch tightly to an opinion that only a few accept? You and the minority have different theories... but you have very few ways to test YOUR ideas, so you content yourselves with trying to cast doubt on ANY research that leads in directions that contradicts YOUR favored 'authority'... which has changed little, even when various religious 'authorities' have accepted those deluded scientists.

Me? I'll wager against Pascal and take my chances.