Prophesying things that have already happened.
Prophesying things that are obviously likely to happen.
Prophesying things so vague that it is easy to claim success.
Outside these 3 camps you'll get the odd startling success through blind luck, and no-one counts the failed prophecies.
Scientific predictions made by theories like ToE are a completely different kind of thing. They are definite. They are non-obvious (unless you accept the theory). If they fail people alter or reject the theory. Stuff that has already been observed only counts if further different observations can be made of the same prediction.
We both agree that the Bible is not science. My point was your argument that the Big Bang was science because it made predictions that were verifiable was fallacious.
Don't get me wrong, I do think it is a useful big picture model, just as I think the concept that all life evolved is, and also the big picture concept of intelligent design.
But realistically there are virtually endless pieces of evidence that could be interpreted to either support or contradict these big pictures, and none of them are well enough defined or testable for mortal science.
Although current examples of the evolutionary processes are scientifically verifiable. The larger picture of evolution being a sufficient explanation for the origins of life is speculation. Its not necessarily a bad speculation. Exactly when and how are always arguable, just as prophecy is, and just like prophecy, we will never know unless God lets us know. As for myself, I think God may very well have chosen to let life evolve. The similarity between the DNA of species for instance is a good hint. But I do not claim my speculation is following the scientific method any more then my interpretation of the Bible is.