skepticism

a rabbi once told me "science and the creation story in genesis are  [quote] compatible there is a book genesis and big bang that explains it" he did not say the same just compatible. whatever that means.
so I asked the rabbi to tell me the idea. the rabbi said 'i did not read the book"
me: then how do you know what is in it?
rabbi: based on the title. =lazy rabbi
well i read the book from library and it is "not compatible with genesis story" and does not defend the creation story.
one of the key claims of the book which it emphasizes at least twice is "stars fuse atoms creating heavy atoms" with many protons.
supposedly the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in our body are from star fusion so would astrophysicists claim and we would believe them because they are scientists yet ther is a problem, that science is what we "observe" and nobody has observed the fusion inside any star...
so that is not science.
just because somebody who usualy writes science writes something that is not science.
well today i finally found the astrophysicist who REFUTEs the book "genesis and big bang'.
this astrophysicist claims that almost all stars "only create helium" by fusing hydrogen one-proton intoi helium 2 proton.so there!
eat your words silly rabbi.
rabbis and religious christians believe that god created man from dirt and animals from dirt. while science said humans are molecules with hydrogen and nitrogen.
and guess what most stars do not make nytrigen.
in fact the fusion process is 'attaching helium" gasp that means 2 new protons per fusion
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT NITROGEN IS AN ODD NUMBER of protons.
so the astrophysicists specify hydrogen is fused into helium and never heavier except for a small percentage of stars which fuse the helium TOGETHER and specify "helium becomes carbon which becomes oxygen
 that means 3 helium join into one carbon [6 proton" and fuse again to become oxygen only in very feww stars and gueess what ?
from 6>8 skips nitrogen ta-dam.
we continue the article which traces the fusion pattern upto iron and beyond to my favorite isotope
MY FAVE  is zinc 60 which is radioactive which means it "shoots out" energy called a positron and decays to zinc60>copper 60 with one less proton.  30-1=29/
now we observe that zinc 60 has a brief "half-life" of 2.40 minutes is that two and les sthan half or 40 seconds i do not know and that is not the evidence, scientists observe that radiation goes out and the decay has a half life and claim that carbon dating also has a half life exceot much longer... 5700 years almost the same number as the rabbi callendar year-number- an odd coincidience...
now the carbon hal-life is not observable if we believe it ismore than 200 years we do noty even know whether carbon isotopes hal\ve half lifes we only CLAIM based on those which are observable such as zinc 60, that other radia-carbons also have half-life too. jesus  christ is that observed?
yet we can imagine a sample of zinc 60 produed in the star as ethan the astrophysicist claimed okay
in a minute percentage of sstars
now if a sample ahs ninety atoms of zinc 60
each one pops off a positron why? because we obnserve radiation and explain it is unstable so it decays to a smaller element 29 copper 60 same num,ber? yes the proton loses energy called positron and its tiotal energy is balanced so instead of 30 protons and 30 neutrons it radiates a positron and now has one less proton which is now a neutron
30-1+30+1= coper 60.
now when we consider that it is unstable each one radiates a positron a small amount of positive energy like an electrojn the apparent diiffference between a proton and nuetron...
so that makes me skeptical that zinc has a half-life at all... how can i believe that there is "half" between zinc and copper it lost one positron that is the step there is no half. skepticism.
in fact eahc one radiates one positron so bang all of them become copper cu 60...
wll if w calculate the time the outer atoms of the sample become copper then the inner already radiated their positron in the same time so the only change between the inner ones is their positron is inside well then it should leak out not half!
teh 90 should elease their positron and all in the same time become copper and if it is radioactive longer then that just meansthe positrons have not moved out yet, so something is in the way but all 90 decayed shall we defeend half life by lying it is stable? it is not stable that is why it shoots out a positron changing to copper!
no. all of these so-called science ideas are unbelievable. this "religion" is just as bad as thee silly bible.
and even if half the zinc decays in 3 minutes who said that is the same half life in carbon and who said that is reliable enough to use carbon dating? those are not oserved as in porevious article and differing "dating methods" have already refuted each other and worse the "initial" amount is unknown and when we double the half lifes the dinosaurs carbon would microwave itself to death in much less than a million years back...
no. we cannot accept the "story" scientists tell of the past because it is not observed and is just as bad as the bible which is also not observen nor believe-able.