A reasonable theory that begins with the words of Genesis rather that follow a crude conjecture of those who weren’t there follows:

Students, Consider: Boudreaux-Baxter theory of Aquo-nucleosynthesis of the Chemical Elements and accelerated beta decay rates
        Present theories of creation of the earth and their failures are described by what I consider a reasonable scientists who begins with the Word of Creator-God. Dr Edward A. Bordeaux, specialist in quantum/computational chemistry, magneto chemistry and chemical physics with more than 54 papers in peer reviewed journals. Co-author/editor of 4 technical books with some 97 presentations, forty invited lectures to local national and international conferences has written what I consider a definitive book, “God Created the Earth; Genesis of Creation Chemistry” (2012, 2nd ed.)  He presents the Boudreaux-Baxter theories of 1. Aquo-Nucleosynthesis of the Chemical Elements and 2.Accelerated Radioactive decay rates.
        I first heard Dr Boudreaux ten years ago and I was suspect because his whole idea depended on what was really written in the Bible, in fact a word that needs clarification.  My King James Bible translates the text of Genesis 1:2:
   “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” [KJV]
I was dumb-founded that this early translation of the ancient Hebrew of “moved” was not informative.  10 years later I did what I am supposed to do and pursued the Word (like a Berean) and found out that “’moved” is not the word but “rachaph” (Strong#7363) is a primitive root meaning to “brood”.  My grandmother kept Road Island Red Hens and had a “brooding” house.  I knew what she did with those eggs----she “incubated” them in the brooding house.  Low and behold the ancient Syriac cognate term translated means “to brood over; to incubate”. Realizing that the hen heated the egg with her body, I started to grasp Ed Boudreaux’s point.
        Read Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and note the “Waters” that are mentioned as the precursor to the elements.  Where the simple meaning of the Word is clear, any other meaning is without bounds…..if you walk from literal, it could mean anything which, I would argue is not what Creator-God speaks to us.
        Once the Holy Spirit heats the water to 1 x 10    + degrees Kelvin ( a billion or more degrees) the “.. 6.02 x 10   kg of water was used to produce the elements and provide 2.013 x 10     oxygen atoms (O) and 4.02 x 10     hydrogen atoms (H), each H atom ionizes its electrons to produce 13.5eV and each Oxygen atom produces 871.4eV if all eight of the electrons are ionized.  The atoms providing 1.754 x 10   eV plus 5.44 x 10    eV from the H atoms, yield a total of 1.08 x 10    eV or 1.808 x 10    MeV.”  Boudreaux gives us the work done equation that includes the plasma decomposition energy parameters, recombination energy of solid earth, mass of water converted to non-aqueous earth, Boltzmann’s constant, the temperature change in going from the plasma state to a solid earth yielding work=2.0 MeV in which the temperature equivalent of the energy is 2.3 x 10     confirming the condition of the high temperature plasma.   “ The pressure to drive nuclear collisions is a property of the plasma.”  
        So if the Boudreaux-Baxter theory of Aquo-nucleosynthesis of chemicals is true, it appears that the “waters” of the bible were turned to water plasma at a temperature of 2.3 x 10    -2.3 x 10    K   or more than a billion degrees plasma where he next argues, the “collisions become non-elastic” and, because of the application of the standard collision theory of hard spheres and the collision rate between unlike particles.  He then calculates the nuclear collision energy for effective fusion as a function of the reaction utilizing the nuclear activation energy (critical energy) for the collision-fusion process modeled after the rate equation addressing chemical activation energy where the actual collision rate is clearly dependent on the total number of effective collisions. [please read the equations directly in his book].
   The presuppositions/assumptions of this data Boudreaux gives as follows:
1. Conventional nucleosynthesis theory as applied in the production of chemical elements in the evolution of star formation is not considered in this model.
2.  All nucleosynthesis processes are treated in terms of the energy transferred according to inelastic classical collision theory of hard spheres. In this model, collision cross sections are not a function of energy but are confined to particle dimensions.
3.  The total energy provided for each fusion processes is a function of the masses of pertinent nuclides and the Q (excess energy) of each reaction. (see the following section on rate production p27)
4.  For purposes of simplicity and time constraints, this study has completed thus far, is limited to the production of only the most stable abundant isotopes of product elements. An extension to various other isotopes, particularly for heavier elements, is planned in a continued extension of this study.
5.  Although more then one process may be applicable for the production of a specific element, for purposes of consistency, only the most energy efficient options have been selected.
6.  Because of the limitations of this present work, no comments can be made about relative elemental abundances in the earth, much less in the solar system or universe.”  

“Is the Nuclear Collision Reaction Model Scientifically Rational?
The question of whether or not collision processes provide an adequate mechanism for producing fusion products, has been criticized in terms of the following- ‘although at high pressure temperatures the thermal energy and collision frequency is greatly increased, it is natural to presume that the nuclide (hard sphere) collisions will be increased.  However, at close inter-nuclear collision distances and high charges, the repulsive energy will be substantially in excess of the collision energy required for fusion.  Consequently, such collisions cannot allow for a fusion product to be realized.’  This premise can be tested using a selected example of one of the specific collisions listed in Table 3 (Part 1).  On the last page of Table 3 the two nuclides bearing the highest charges are Pd     /Nd     . Application of equation (9) in Part II at a collision distance of 1.75 x 10     m and an effective charge of Ze= +45.2, yields a repulsion energy of 3.46 MeV. This is slightly less than twice the 1.55 MeV required to produce the fusion product.  If this were the only factor involved, then indeed the repulsion energy would prohibit any fusion from taking place. But fortunately, this is not the case, because, as shown in Part II, there is a plasma kinetic energy of 5.6 MeV imparted to each nuclide contained within the plasma.  This is more than sufficient to overcome the repulsive energy and still provide the 1.55 MeV required for the Pd/Nd collision to be effective.
Hence, the objection to nuclear collisions being effective at high charges is nullified and the collision process for nuclear fusion is vindicated for all nuclear reactions forming all elements.” 
   Boudreaux’s work is remarkable to say the least, while I’m not trained enough to do more than present their work, I encourage you to read their publication and communicate with them directly.