@rubber chicken
Sorry but once again you are wrong. Do you know everything about relativity or evolutionary biology? I'm sure you do not. To some extent every argument in support of a subject will rely on an authority.
I'm sorry but you seem to be remarkably confused about what constitutes a fallacy and what doesn't. An appeal to authority is not always a fallacy. Just as many appeals can be used and not be used fallaciously. It is when it is used in a particular manner.
I'm sorry but this is logic 101.
The appeal to authority in its non fallacious form is...
Premise 1 - Experts on a subject are usually correct.
Premise 2 - Experts on the subject have a consensus that P is correct.
Conclusion - Therefore P is probably correct.
and in its fallacious form...
Premise 1 - People with qualifications are usually correct.
Premise 2 - Those people say P is correct.
Conclusion - Therefore P is definitely correct.
From the rationwiki page on Argument from Authority.
Again, not all classifications of arguments that begin with Argument from are always fallacious. Asking for a persons credentials is certainly not fallacious. If upon receiving Ray's credentials Joe were to say in response to one of his arguments, "oh you have no formal training in evolutionary biology so all of your premises are worthless', than this would be fallacious. It would also be fallacious if say Joe invoked Charles Darwin in this way, "Charles Darwin was a brilliant and accomplished scientist, he says you are wrong, therefore you are wrong." Fallacies are often confusing but using authority is not always fallacious. Asking for experience or credentials is certainly not fallacious.
If this was the case we could never use consensus in support of climate change and even citing another scientists work would be considered fallacious. You seem to be entrenched but I implore you to take a class. Logic is a wonderful subject but it is far too often misunderstood by those on the internet.
