From your definition (emphasis added): "an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument." Saying that something doesn't make scientific sense, or is illogical, is not appealing to an authoritative opinion. "1+1=3" doesn't make sense, yet, also doesn't appeal to authority. Nor is the video illustrating preaching to the choir. It is the testimony of an individual that initially believed a certain way, then changed their opinion. It doesn't preach to the choir anymore than a typical autobiography "preaches to the choir."
The video starts with "To Dr. Richard Lumsden, former professor of biology at Tulane University in medical school and the former dean of the graduate school, ..." Yeah, he was just your typical man on the street. No, when someone is presented as, not just a scientist, but a former professor of biology and former dean of the graduate school at a highly-ranked university, some people might just take his word about something related to biology even without any actual evidence -- especially if they already have the same beliefs.
He didn't offer himself as an authority. He made no such arguments. Are you suggesting that he be banned from offering his testimony because of his occupation? In court, a biologist can testify. That is not the same as a biologist that is deemed an expert witness by the court. He never offered his opinion as authoritative or 'expert.' You're simply being deceptive again ... this time, without your smiley faces ... wait ...
According to Wikipedia, "scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority[16][17][18] as authority has no place in science.[17][19][20] Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority: One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.[21] One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923,[22] when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[23][24] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956,[25] scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority,[26][27][24] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[23][28] Even textbooks[23] with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24[28] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs. In this case, it would seem the theory of evolution has made it's way into the scientific community on the premise of appeal to authority, since the evidence itself, as stated by Dr. Richard D. Lumsden, is the same body of evidence that creationists use to build a stronger case for creation than evolutionists have for evolution. The example Wikipedia gives of replacing the obviously correct number of chromosomes with the number the authorities endorsed reminds me of the twisting I see the evolutionists use. One example of this is that they say that natural selection is an evolutionary process that explains genetic jumps from one species to another without having the scientific evidence to back it up.
The video offered him as an authority, and my opinion is he expressed his opinion without evidence (you may correct my opinion as you often try to do). 15 is greater than 10! https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
Let's start with Problem #1: Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup Which one of your 15 addresses this concern?