Quote:

I really don't care too much for astronomy, but I have yet to hear a decent explanation for this.



That's the problem: you won't get the latter without the former.

You do not care about astronomy, i.e. observation of structure and history of the universe, but nevertheless have made up your mind that supernatural events must be involved in this. So you still care - but only if it fits into your belief system! Thus, as the observations obviously contradict anything supernatural, you have no choice but to not care about or ignore astronomy. Just as you've forced to ignore the overwhelming evolution evidence.

I also see that you do not really get the difference between a scientific and a superstitional world view:

Quote:

"Ok, we have to find a way that the universe could exist without God."




On the surface, that's your silly science "strawman" again. But in fact it is the familiar creationist approach, just turned upside down:

"Ok, we have to find a way that life could not exist without supernatural events."

Science does not care about the existence or nonexistence of gods, as long as they are not observable. God is left to religion, supernaturality is left to superstition. The scientific approach - that you'll probably learn when beginning with your biology study - is:

"Let's find a theory that describes our observation of the universe as good as possible."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

If you really want to see gods or daemons or supernatural forces in nature, you probably will. But keep in mind: God is not on your side. If anything, he's on the side of science. Because if he existed, he'd obviously designed the world in a way consistent with a scientific explanation, and inconsistent with supernaturality. And he'd hate superstition.

Quote:

I suppose the explanation might be that these heavier elements, caused by a supernova, formed clouds that then formed into solar systems, but I suppose I'll have to ask where the proof of this happening is.



This explanation is correct. Nucleosynthesis is basic quantum mechanics (in fact it can be described pretty accurately even with a classical appoach). The proof can be found in any accelerator experiment. And the proof that the same happens in the universe is that we see stars forming this way at several places in our and other galaxies. The composition of elements, and the amount of heavy elements in the interstellar gas is directly observed in spectral absorption lines. Nucleosynthesis of heavy elements is directly observed in supernova spectrae.

But I still have no clue of the reason of your problem with those elements. Do you doubt the existence of heavy elements, or how they were created? Do you think that heavy elements were created by supernatural forces?

Quote:

The energy would be unusable, and the universe would be uninhabitable.



This was your argument, if I remember right, why the universe can not be infinite. I admit that I'm now totally lost. Could you explain what "unuseable energy" is?