Right, because the heavier elements aren't really the result of stellar nucleosynthesis, they were just there all along!
Ok and here the debate starts over on such an grander scale that we are all about to uphold. If they are lost may we help find them.
Let me get this straight Rav. You are assuming the first elements made were godly, yet the rest were the creation of something which God did not intend? Something alive from the linguistic standpoint of the root nucleo-
1704, "kernel of a nut," 1708, "head of a comet," from Latin nucleus "kernel," from nucula "little nut," diminutive of nux (genitive nucis) "nut," from PIE *kneu- "nut" (cf. Middle Irish cnu, Welsh cneuen, Middle Breton knoen "nut," Old Norse hnot, Old English hnutu "nut"). General sense of "central part or thing, about which
others cluster"1704, "kernel of a nut," 1708, "head of a comet," from Latin nucleus "kernel," from nucula "little nut," diminutive of nux (genitive nucis) "nut," from PIE *kneu- "nut" (cf. Middle Irish cnu, Welsh cneuen, Middle Breton knoen "nut," Old Norse hnot, Old English hnutu "nut"). General sense of "central part or thing, about which others cluster"
Nuts are in fact alive. Yes this is some sort of logical fallacy to which the word was not intended for this use! But I believe we would also have to ask the man who created most of its usage today if that is really what he intended? Did this man who has put so much effort into centralizing the main vain of information into such a singular living aspect for as to expect us to subconsciously realize which words pertain to the living and which pertain to God? was it many men? Did the do this purposefully then still allow us to choose them! That is madness. It rightfully makes me so.