What is the problem? Why do you call the various kinds of evolution that you mention "unscientific"?
Well, you have to realize that each of these "definitions" are examined in the video series and the "unscientific" - heh - stupidity of them will be discussed, but basically they are "unscientific" in that they are not observed.
The 6th one, for example, is observed. Everybody knows that a dog will produce a dog and not an ear of corn.
Your use of the term "purely theoretical" suggests that you are unaware of the definition of "theory" as used in science.
When does a prediction become fantasy? When does science become fiction. Why am I here talking about something which I have very little interest in? It is because you believe in a religion that opposes another, and most interestingly, you don't know that you do that because you have been indoctrinated. I have always suspected this but here I am confirming it.
The word "evolution" means "change over time". Why do you think the use of the word "evolution" is made less valid when it is applied to different phenomena that involve change over time? The scientists involved in the various fields that you mention are careful to distinguish the type of evolution that they discuss.
Yeah! It is so obvious, isn't it! Over and over and over again we have to stress how the word evolution is used. A person changes over time, but it doesn't change into an ear of corn.
What is unscientific about Big Bang cosmology?
If I say God exists because religion says so does that make it true? If I say that science may be wrong about the Big Bang you are not going to argue that, and you sure have not addressed the point about the Big Bang Dr. Hovind raised. What exploded? Where did what allegedly exploded come from? And the energy etc.
A reasonable question. The answer is: The universe "exploded".
The universe exploded into the universe and you have to ask what is unscientific about the Big Bang?!
C'mon people!
This is how science works. As more information is gained theories are refined. In the early nineteenth century it was thought that the known elements were composed of distinct atoms, one for each element. Does the fact that the sub-structure of atoms has been gradually understood in greater and greater detail since then invalidate atomic theory?
The same question could be asked of religion, politics, the lottery or anything. When you say "This happened," that is fact. When you say "we think this might have happened," that is religion and science. When you confuse the two that is stupid. Evolution is stupid.
What they mean is that there was likely no "before" the Big Bang as we currently understand it. "Before the Big Bang" is probably as nonsensical as "North of the North Pole".
You are having a hard time with this, aren't you? What you are saying is that nothing exploded. Nothing really is nothing. Where did it come from? If you can't answer it just say you can't answer it. If you don't know say you don't know. Don't act as if there was nothing that you can't understand before the Big Bang because you have already more or less said nothing became nothing, like magic, what the hell do you have to lose at this point?!
Do you have anything to offer beside arguments from personal incredulity? The sources you are relying on to tell you what science is are deeply flawed.
Just answer the questions raised. That's all. Simple. You can't. No one can.
