1. Comment #98314 by rationalityfirst on December 13, 2007 at 1:13 pm

First of all hello everybody, I'm new here and this is my first message.
About the question now.
I thought about the subject a lot, and I think that the explanation that a superior being created Earth just for us to posess it, it'a a bit egotistic from the human race. We think that because we look at the situation from our point of view, we look for predetermination in things that just happen. It's just that we are that lucky to be here now. And the answers are coming from science with every new discovery being made.

Other Comments by rationalityfirst

2. Comment #98318 by rnewson on December 13, 2007 at 1:19 pm

The universe is over 99% empty space. It contains millions, perhaps billions of potential Earths, none known to be anything but dead rock.

The universe is not fine-tuned for life. The existence of one life-bearing planet in the entire universe is fortunate and, by definition, if there's only one, we're standing on it.

Other Comments by rnewson

3. Comment #98323 by Goldy on December 13, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Becasue it is, I guess is the answer.
If they find evidence of life on Mars, then this question will be pretty immaterial....

Other Comments by Goldy

4. Comment #98324 by Goldy on December 13, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Becasue it is, I guess is the answer.
If they find evidence of life on Mars, then this question will be pretty immaterial....

Other Comments by Goldy

5. Comment #98325 by Goldy on December 13, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Becasue it is, I guess is the answer.
If they find evidence of life on Mars, then this question will be pretty immaterial....

Other Comments by Goldy

6. Comment #98375 by Crosius on December 13, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Life and the environment found on Earth do not mesh by coincidence, and you have your causality reversed.

It is not the environment of earth that conforms to the needs of life, rather it is the function of life to conform to the features of the available environment. As a single example, if the Earth were too hot for the proteins currently present in our bodies, the organisms on earth would be composed of different proteins.

Life adapts to fit the niche, not the other way around.

Further, the term "coincidence" is inaccurate. Evolution is not the same thing as coincidence. Evolution is a process of incremental refinement of living systems measured against their successful interaction with their environment. After millions of generations, it is no surprise that this process of incremental refinement would result in organisms well suited to the environment of Earth.

Finally, the "Environment of Earth" is a vastly variable theatre in which life makes its way. There are organisms which function under terrestrial extremes of temperature, pressure, light and darkness that would easily kill organisms from other terrestrial environments.

A given living thing is not perfectly suited to life on the whole Earth - only in a very small subset of the Earth's environmental scope. Yet, the entire Earth, with the exception of the most hostile parts of it's core and the most rarefied heights of it's atmosphere, is home to life.

Other Comments by Crosius

7. Comment #98384 by USA_Limey on December 13, 2007 at 2:38 pm

I hate these stupid 'debating points' so much I am going to be childish and petulant.

They completely mess up the 'lates visitor comments' section which helps us keep track of responses to the latest articles posted.

So there.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

8. Comment #98433 by hurrican on December 13, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Goldy

Did they not a while back from some sort of stone that came from mars and it had some kind of evidence that there once was life on mars?

Other Comments by hurrican

9. Comment #98446 by gkkalai on December 13, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Is it a co-incidence that water in the bottle is exactly the same shape as the bottle?

Other Comments by gkkalai

10. Comment #98474 by BigJohn on December 13, 2007 at 5:42 pm

Bingo! Crosius, but don't forget to point out that the way we're destroying our precious support system right now, no one will be around to discuss this stuff for a lot longer.

Other Comments by BigJohn

11. Comment #98488 by automath on December 13, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Life is found to be suited to its environment because it has evolved to be suited to that environment.

Other Comments by automath

12. Comment #98670 by jaf on December 14, 2007 at 2:32 am

The 'Goldilocks Proposition' is utter nonsense.
The Earth is not perfectly suited for life. Quite the reverse, life is perfectly suited to Earth.
At least, the kind of life found on Earth is; who knows what kind of life might be found on other planets in the universe? If there is any at all, it would have to be suited to that (or those) planet(s), and may well be totally unsuitable and so unable to survive on Earth.

Other Comments by jaf

13. Comment #98688 by f0xfree on December 14, 2007 at 4:03 am

The questions begs an accidental nature when in fact the solar system is ordered by gravitional forces allowing for our planet to be in a position to support life.

Other Comments by f0xfree

14. Comment #98721 by monoape on December 14, 2007 at 6:22 am

Agreed, USA_Limey - the articles section of this website is not the correct platform for 'debating points'. The forum would be a much better location - those interested can monitor and participate.

Please stop cluttering up the articles section.

Other Comments by monoape

15. Comment #98749 by sidfaiwu on December 14, 2007 at 7:35 am

How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

I have no idea. But ignorance in no excuse for assuming God did it.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

16. Comment #99266 by aquilacane on December 16, 2007 at 6:35 am

Actually, life is perfectly suited to the earth, you have it backwards; so therefore, your question is invalid.

Other Comments by aquilacane

17. Comment #99497 by bexmex on December 16, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Firstly, the earth is only one tiny planet in the great universe. We do not know at present what the scientific odds are of "life." It might be incredibly common, or incredibly rare. We see life all the time in incredibly inhospitable places... there's no reason to believe we're the only ones.

However... the general stability of the laws of physics is a bit trickier. There's a new-ish theory in quantum physics called "retrocausality," or the idea that time travel is quite ordinary:

http://bexhuff.com/2007/03/retrocausality-time-travel-and-quantum-physics

After the big bang, the universe could have formed any number of ways... the vast majority would have led to a highly unstable universe. If the weight of the electron was a tiny bit different, Hydrogen atoms would not exist. The universe would be a boiling cauldron of chaos.

This new crazy theory is that we live in a "self tuning universe," with particles going backwards in time to adjust the big bang to ensure a more "stable" universe... one in which suns warm planets, ice floats, and clusters of self-replicating water bags of low entropy (aka life) is possible.

Other Comments by bexmex

18. Comment #101782 by Jake Atkisson on December 21, 2007 at 1:18 am

If there is anything resembling a willful creating force, I don't know a thing about it. I would be silly to pretend that I do.

I am an atheist not because I refuse the potential for such things, but because I refuse to pretend that I know what I, in fact, do not know.

There exists no evidence that seems, to me, to stand as actual evidence for anything resembling a creator-force or god-figure of any sort; ergo, I do not believe in any such things.

Why is the world so mystifyingly supportive of life whereas no other ball of space-rock we've yet spied out seems to share this peculiarity?

Well, there's a -lot- of scientific observation explaining -how- it came about. We're still stuck on 'why' though.

I predict that we'll take our first step in finding such an answer when the majorities stop pretending they have all the answers already, and that is what religion offers; quick, easy answers, pre-fabricated for all your existential-quandary needs.

I mean, come on, I'd apologize but I feel no remorse; it should be a little obvious.

If there is a god-figure, it quite plainly exists in such a manner that we cannot pinpoint it yet; maybe someday we might if there is such a thing to find.

Maybe we won't. What's the problem with this?

I think I know.

I think it goes a little something like this- "Onoez, I am scared because I have no certainty, so I'll latch on to the -first thing that seems certain- and cling to it for dear life!"

Religion: Mankind's saddest, yet most provocative attempt at convincing itself that it possesses not merely certainty, but the inside track to feeling special.

Kinda pathetic that an entire species can be summarized as "Terminally Insecure: Best Just To Avoid Them".

That's what I'd say about us if I were an alien observing all this, anyway.

:)

Other Comments by Jake Atkisson

19. Comment #113864 by Alyosha on January 20, 2008 at 7:55 pm

The world isn't suited for life. Life, as we know it, is suited for the world.

Next!

Other Comments by Alyosha

20. Comment #115093 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Earth is not perfectly suited for life. Indeed 99% of all species that have ever been on this planet are extinct. Life forms have been continually adapting themselves to become more fit to earth's changing conditions. And from that view point, religion is a step in the reverse direction.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

21. Comment #123539 by markireland on February 7, 2008 at 10:20 am

I am new to this page, but this argument has been thrust upon me many times by religous family members and friends, my response is always similar to those mentioned above. The basis of evolutionary process is that life grows and gradually adapts to best suit circumstance and environment. The earth is only a good place for us to live because life has grown into it, NOT the other way around. Further more I believe that it is arrogant to believe that we are the only life in the universe, statistically it has to exist elsewhere within the vast universe.

Other Comments by markireland

22. Comment #125759 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 12, 2008 at 1:50 am

this is a common misconception; earth isnt perfectly suited for life, life is perfectly suited for earth.

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

23. Comment #125889 by g czobel on February 12, 2008 at 8:23 am

=sarcasm on=
Take a glass container of almost any shape and pour some liquid into it. Notice how the liquid fills every nook and crany of the container regardless of how complicated the shape of the container is (there are exceptions - can you guess what they are?). But the liquid is just mindless material. How does it "know" to follow the contours of any intricately shaped vessel without fail? Surely it can't. This just can't be coincidence. Surely this is a sign of a divine intelligence that knew in advance what shape the liquid will take as it was poured and ensured that the appropriately shaped vessel was used to receive it.
=sarcasm off=

Other Comments by g czobel

24. Comment #130223 by martino on February 20, 2008 at 7:20 am

Its not a coincidence.

Other Comments by martino

25. Comment #136830 by elect the dead on March 1, 2008 at 7:34 pm

It is true that life adapted to the world, not the world to life, but even if the conditions here were made for life it was bound to happen somewhere. If the chances that a planet would end up with conditions like Earth's that would support life as we know it were one billion to one, there are way more than one billion planets out there that we don't even know about, so it would have had to happen. It wouldn't be coincidence at all.

Other Comments by elect the dead

26. Comment #141946 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I've answered this question with another question: "how else should it be?"

It's much like Wittgenstein's statement regarding how people believed the sun went around the Earth rather than the Earth going around the sun. Someone said to him, "because that's the way it looks..." to which Wittgenstein responded, "what would it look like if the Earth went around the sun?" The answer of course is "just as it looks right now."

Not to mention, however, that the heliocentric view is in reality just as wrong as an Earth centered view. Neither are at the center, and both revolve around each other as they travel through space, and it looks from here the way it looks.

So, if the world being suited for life is an argument for the existence of God, one has to ask, "what would it look like if there wasn't a God?" Wouldn't it look just like this?

And, from our perspective, our whole reality seems so "perfectly suited" for us to live. But, is it really? Would an intelligent designer create so much useless space? Why sent comets and meteors into the Earth to wipe out millions of species on Earth if it's all so "perfectly suited?" Why have disease and painful death? Why does childbirth hurt? Why are our bodies so fragile? Why do some animals eat others? If I was designing a life-sustaining habitat, I would certainly make it more hospitable than this one.

Other Comments by prospero811

27. Comment #142072 by p-heretic on March 11, 2008 at 9:22 pm

when you consider the vastness of the universe and the fact that life has been evolving for millions of years to suit the conditions on earth it seems to be relatively easy for life to inhabit the earth and almost certainly many other planets all over the universe.

Other Comments by p-heretic

28. Comment #170370 by Verily on April 27, 2008 at 5:36 pm

That the conditions of the universe are specifically designed for human life is basically the anthropic principle. It is difficult for humans not to perceive reality anthropocentrically. If I were a microbial organ with consciousness and language and could trace my origins back billions of years to ancestors very similar to myself, I would be saying that I was the most successful form of organic life on planet Earth and that all the parameters of the cosmology had evidently been designed around my interests and finely tuned in my favour. Not only that, I would be saying that I had out-survived millions of intervening species and would probably still be here as a form of life when humans had all disappeared. Much of the argument for the anthropic principle seems to depend on the uniqueness of the kind of evolved intelligence without which we could not even state or discuss it. But we prize and quarantine human intelligence because we have it. Charles Lineweaver discusses a similar kind of issue in Australian Science (Jan/Feb 2008): 'If you were an elephant, you might be interested in nose size and whether there was a trend in the fossil record towards increasing nasalization quotient (NQ)'. Tracing your evolution, you would discover that you now represented 'the pinnacle of nasality'. It is in the same way that we see ourselves as the pinnacle of evolved intelligence, and assume that all cosmological conditions combine to underpin our self-image. However, as Lineweaver suggests, this would be 'a foregone conclusion without meaning simply because you have chosen to examine your most extreme feature'.

Other Comments by Verily

29. Comment #173707 by dadamo on May 1, 2008 at 6:35 am

Question: "How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?"

Answer: The Earth is not suited to life by
coincidence. Life is suited to the Earth by
natural selection.

Other Comments by dadamo

30. Comment #177158 by LiseYates on May 8, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Jake Atkinson, you're my hero.

Other Comments by LiseYates