The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[orangebox21]

So, let's ignore the fact that a fifty second youtube clip is not a "mainstream, peer reviewed scientific paper, report or textbook," as I asked for, because you'd be wrong even if the content of that was in report form. You've failed from the outset, but let's move on:

You have given me an impossible task. You asked for a "mainstream, peer reviewed scientific paper, report, or textbook," as proof and then said "you'd be wrong even if the content of that (the video) was in report form." You've asked me to provide proof, defined what that proof is, then said you'd reject that proof even if I brought it to you. These are the words of a person without reason. You've simply appealed to yourself as the ultimate authority.

Men recognize that we must appeal to something outside ourselves. The scientist appeals to his observations and the natural laws of science. Men appeal to the moral law to determine what is right and wrong. Men appeal to the laws of reason and logic to determine the validity of arguments. While me may disagree as to what the standards of our appeal are or where we get our standards from, we do agree there are standards. If not, "Because you said so" would be a sufficient argument.

I'd be happy to continue in this conversation but at this point standards need to be established. Post your specifics and we can continue.
"You've failed from the outset" is an appeal to your own authority as supreme. No one can debate a person who talks like this.

For those reading wanting some clarification and as a goodwill offering here you are:

One of the standard textbook for graduate level stellar structure remains the one by Donald D. Clayton, Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis. Not only does the word evolution appear in the title, but the word appears frequently in the book.

The 1957 one in Reviews of Modern Physics by Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler, and Hoyle (referred to as BBFH) is quoted as saying, "It seems probable that the elements all evolved from hydrogen, since the proton is stable while the neutron is not." Of course, this is a peer-reviewed journal, and one of the authors, Willie Fowler, won the 1983 Nobel Prize in Physics.

I would also suggest looking into Virginia Trimble, who said something to the effect that researching the origin of the elements through this (stellar) evolution was her motivation for entering the field. I didn't record that quote or reference, so I can't retrieve it, but I did find similar sentiments elsewhere expressed by Virginia. It comes from her book, Visits to a Small Universe, part of the Masters of Modern Physics series published by the American Institute of Physics. This is not a fly-by-night organization.

Quoting from her preface:

"The basic scheme has not changed much in the 15-year span over which these pieces were first written. It leads from a hot, dense early universe, to galaxies that form stars where nuclear reactions transform the simpler, lighter elements into the heavier ones needed by chemically -based life, on to planets whose stable environments permit energy from stars to interact with molecules of gradually increasing complexity, and finally to self-replicating (living) molecules, intelligence, and the ability to modify the home planet almost beyond recognition."

(Note: The previous are excerpts from an email I recieved from a retired Ph. D Astronomer. Not my words, but his slightly modified.)

I do not have time presently to respond to all counterarguments, I will post them soon.