Actually, it's a combination of that and appeal to authority.
Nevertheless, unless you're a scientist and a specialist in your field, everyone (including scientists) must rely upon the expertise of others.
Because of the astounding success of the scientific method in the last 300 years, I am content to watch trends and rely on the mainstream of opinion. For example, I accept the theory of relativity, although I know there are a tiny minority of those who do not.
If they can stand it on their head, so much the better, but their solutions had better fully take into account Einstein's equations because we know that they work.
The point is, science tends to advance these days by accreting on the knowledge we have already accumulated. Einstein did not throw Newton out - on the contrary, he provided a deeper insight into nature. Newtonian equations are embodied in relativity.
So I am highly skeptical that a theory like evolution, with its vast amounts of suppporting evidence from a diversity of scientific disciplines, is way off by orders of magnitude.
Furthermore, when I see the ad hoc nature of explanations in much of creationism, I see a inelegant hodge-podge of statements that don't bear much resemblance to what is actually observed. I'm also a bit concerned by the urge to subsume science to religion. I think that science ends up suffering.
4,200 years, eh?
Your point about siamese cats is interesting, but you neglect to mention the fact that they are still felix catus, and are not genetically different.
You are right - it is possible to affect some quite dramatic changes in a short period if you are deliberately and selectively breeding for character traits in each generation. Instead of the generally more subtle nudges of natural selection (barring major environmental change), you indulge directed selection, it should come as no surprise that it doesn't take so long.
Big cats do show more variance, and you seem to be proposing that this variance happens, and is happening, in a ridiculously small amount of time. I'm interested to know why we don't see this rate of change today. You seem to allude that we do, but don't provide much in the way of examples (note, I'm talking within nature here, not through selective breeding programs).
I have to say that if you're serious about 4,200 years as the time period for all the genetic diversity we see on the planet, I can't really take you seriously.
As you say, we shall see as more and more genomes are sequenced and compared. Personally, I think this question was already settled much earlier, but maybe when we've got the detailed roadmaps creation science will have to fallback once again.
If you're right, then when do you think we'll see the revolution in scientific thinking occur? What decade this century should I mark in my calendar? Seems to me that with 114 genomes, they'd have enough evidence by now. Has it been hushed up, do you think?
Hey -- it's your guy that's doing it.
My guy?? What are you on about?
Are you sure they've completed that many, or does that include the ones they're currently working on as well?
Yup, that's an approximation of how many they've completed so far. In fact, let me get you an exact number:
114 total genomes sequenced.
http://www.nslij-genetics.org/seq/
So I was off by six, but I was doing it from memory.
Although, if you include viruses, plasmids, and organelles, the total number of sequenced genomes is 1648.
