The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Esquilax]

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.

Ah, no: what I said was that the content of that specific video doesn't say what you think it says, so if you brought me a mainstream report that says what that specific video says, you'd be wrong. I asked for a specific kind of proof, and you gave me something else that, even if it was in the correct format, does not show what you've been claiming. That's not the same thing as rejecting all proof, just rejecting insufficient proof.

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.

As I said, if you're going to posit something as a field of science, then what I want is a mainstream, peer reviewed work from an actual scientist that refers to it as being such. That's actually an absurdly low barrier of evidence to begin with. What you gave me was a youtube video of a scientist talking analogously about how atomic matter was forged in stars. I asked for something real, and you gave me a vague metaphor that doesn't even match up to the initial description you gave.

Is it any wonder I rejected it?

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.

You're aware the word has a non-scientific meaning too, right? If I wrote a book titled "the evolution of car designs," does that mean I'm implying that cars evolve and that this is science, or rather that they change over successive generations?

Your finding usages of the word "evolution" in these things doesn't exactly answer any of the questions I posed, namely the more important last one; if we accept your concept here as true, would you not then have to admit that biological evolution is a confirmed fact, and is in no way hindered by the other kinds?

Oh, and again, you started off by saying stellar evolution was the big bang model, and now you've changed what you're talking about, I'm assuming because it's harder to find single instances of the word evolution within texts about big bang cosmology.