The creation model is made up of two parts: 1) theistic (faith) and 2) scientific. This statement is essentially saying "The unscientific portion of creationism is unscientific!" What's ironic is that every worldview has unscientific portions.

This one is utterly ridiculous. It's almost too ignorant to respond to other than to point out that it's obviously a ploy used by evolutionists capitalizing on people's ignorance of what is "scientific".

The irony is that part of our rejection of evolution is because of science! Also there are professional secular scientists today that reject neo-Darwinism for scientific reasons.

There's a difference between "Scientific statements" and "Statements by scientists"

Statements like these above are common misunderstandings by individuals unfamiliar with how science works, it's limitations, the basic understanding that all scientific evidence needs to be interpreted, and that interpretations are effected by ones worldview.

Creationists can equally say that scientific evidence indicates that the earth, and the solar system cannot be billions of years old.

There's no such thing. This one is certainly too absurd to respond to.

Whenever you hear a aka. Evolutionary Creationists Theistic Evolutionists make this statement pay close attention and you'll see what they REALLY mean: "Merging faith and scientific consensus". And by that they mean merging faith with the methodological naturalism that is neo-Darwinism. They are equivocating that with the term "science".

Statements like these made by TEs are prime examples of why I'm writing this article: "Define science".

When creationists say this, they are using the term "science" properly: as a tool.