support life here on earth?
Considering all the gravitational forces existing: the rotation of the earth, the orbit of the moon around the earth, the orbit of the earth and planets around the sun, the solar systems journey through the galaxy, the galaxy’s journey through the universe and the universes continuing expansion. Seems to me that they are all perfectly placed to support life here on earth.
I know this question should be asked under a science category but most of you claim to have extensive understanding of matters of complex scientific theory, where simple fundies like me only understand the WORD of GOD.
And please use your own words not pages of cut and paste dribble. The way I see it, if you can’t explain it in your own words then you don’t understand it yourselves
I am not an atheist however I am not convinced that there is a creator so I try to study and learn in order to find the best answer at the moment I would be called an agnostic ( one who is unsure of the truth but is looking for the truth)
There are 2 possibilities:
!) A creator developed this earth so that it would be a great home for all of his creations.
2) Because this planet has such a great environment life has formed and developed on this planet.
Lets just hope that no matter how we got here , MAN does not screw it up.
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by 3 at November 29th, 2009
Life evolved the way it did because of the conditions around us. Your thinking is all backwards.
References :
#2 by Birdy at November 29th, 2009
Yes possibly true mike, but how you get to the conclusion "magic man" did it is totally beyond me!
And I think you answer that your self, "simple fundie."
References :
#3 by Eleventy at November 29th, 2009
There are a billion billion planets in the universe. 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 isn’t all that amazing.
References :
#4 by Magley64...AM at November 29th, 2009
nothing outside of the solar system has any measureable impact on life support systems, and the moon has very little to do with it…
References :
#5 by Amjid at November 29th, 2009
Why not life everywhere? Why does you thinking that only life is on Earth? What proof you have of this? Amjid is thinking that you are the one not understand yourself or anything.
References :
#6 by briankeithbel at November 29th, 2009
I think your last line is very ironic
"And please use your own words not pages of cut and paste dribble. The way I see it, if you can’t explain it in your own words then you don’t understand it yourselves"
Don’t you use the bible to explain everything? So aren’t you doing the same thing …
References :
#7 by Judy Jetson at November 29th, 2009
Of course not. Most of the Universe has no effect on this little out of the way speck.
References :
#8 by J.P. at November 29th, 2009
Your comment invokes the anthropic principle, which is philosophically invalid.
Conditions were not created for humans.
Humans evolved to meet the pre-existing conditions.
References :
#9 by Paul at November 30th, 2009
So far scientists have discovered 15 planets that support water, and ice that each have a cloud structures. So what about God creating the Earth perfectly, sounds like you are mistaken
References :
#10 by Meat Bot at November 30th, 2009
Is supports life on earth but that doesn’t mean it was specifically designed to do so. If the placement wasn’t correct, you wouldn’t be here to ask about it so you shouldn’t be surprised when it seems well-adjusted. Are you surprised that you don’t live in the center of the sun? Look at all of the places where you DON’T have life,
Perhaps the range of habitable climates is greater than we thought? Perhaps there are multiple universes, each with different settings. Perhaps the universe can only form in such a way that life is possible.
References :
#11 by Green Troll at November 30th, 2009
Because the universe is obviously not constructed specifically designed to support life here on earth. Out of the trillions of trillions of planets that have the right "spot" around their suns to maintain being a planet, it seems pretty likely that one of them meets the requirements to support life.
References :
#12 by ms_coktoasten at November 30th, 2009
It doesn’t. As an atheist-leaning agnostic, I know that science cannot disprove god. It does, however, disprove much of the Bible’s literal interpretation. So, through science, I know the Bible to be false.
Since, however, spirituality and science have nothing to do with one another, spirituality (creationism) should not be taught in a school science class. As a former anthropology student, however, I fully support a public school class on world cultures and religions, where all types of creation stories are taught side by side.
References :
#13 by GSqueeze at November 30th, 2009
The universe was not "designed" to support life here on Earth. It just so happens that in this particular portion of this particular galaxy a planet formed at the right distance to support organic life. Period.
References :
#14 by Taelec at November 30th, 2009
well to be honest we don’t know if it was specifically designed to support life just on earth
There could be millions of planets out there with life We just can’t find them yet with current tech
and if they are at a younger stage of life say dinos then there is no way for them to get a hold of us
Life could be as common as dirt and viruses.. we just have not found it yet
and the universe si BIG!!!
References :
#15 by Vishal a.k.a. Hayt at November 30th, 2009
Conservative estimates suggests there are over 1 quintillion planets in the galaxy. That’s 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets. It is not surprising that one of those planets would have the set of conditions necessary to support life.
It’s also not surprising that the planet we live on is that planet. If it had been another planet, we’d be there and wondering why Glarnak-7 (or whatever we’d call it) is so well suited to supporting life.
References :
#16 by Sophrosyne at November 30th, 2009
It’s a statistical probability, not an engineered outcome.
References :
#17 by jonjon v2.0, WoB at November 30th, 2009
It’s just another way of looking at the problem. You say that all of the factors that enable life to flourish on Earth are evidence of a "designer." The alternative in your mind is to consider the whole thing to be an "accident."
You know, our sun is one of a hundred million million in our galaxy, which is one of a hundred million million in the local cluster of galaxies. (I think I have those numbers about right; at any rate, it’s an "astronomical" figure.) That’s a lot of opportunity for factors to arise in certain solar systems to enable life to flourish. The question of a "creator" is simply superfluous to science. It doesn’t really answer or solve anything; it’s just a human way of trying to make sense of something we don’t fully understand yet.
Human beings always tend to anthropomorphize the universe. That is, we read human qualities into non-human things. That’s how the whole idea of "God" arose. Originally God was a way of ensuring a successful hunt, or controlling the weather. Now He’s a way of explaining the observed complexity of the universe. The common thread is that He’s always been a means of explaining or controlling things that we don’t actually understand or have power to control.
References :
#18 by A.Mercer at November 30th, 2009
Life is adapted to fit on this planet. It evolved that way. So saying that the planet perfectly fits the life is proof of design is kind of silly. The conditions on this planet change. We have ice ages and other calamities to deal with. Life either adapts to these changes or dies out. The dinosaurs are an example of this. They could not deal with the change of environment on earth and they are no longer here. The change was brought about by the meteor crash but it still resulted in a change. Other animals were able to adapt and they became dominant.
There is absolutely no evidence to support a god existing. There is evidence to support evolution. In science, saying that god did it does not wash. If that were the case, then we would still be in the dark ages praying that black death would go away.
References :
#19 by Opinionatedkitten at November 30th, 2009
Scientists don’t discuss design. That is a metaphysical question, which lies outside of the realm of science. All science does is observe the data it has at hand. It doesn’t make any comment about such questions as ultimate purpose. Those are questions for theologians and philosophers.
References :
#20 by Fred S - AM Cappo Di Tutti Capi at November 30th, 2009
We evolved to fit the environment, not the other way around. Two points, in my own words:
1) The universe is pretty darn big, and 99.99999999999% of it has nothing to do with supporting life on earth.
2) Anyone with infinite powers intelligently designing an environment to support human life could have done a far better job. Most of the earth is uninhabitable and not suited for supporting us. We could use lots more fresh water, fewer hurricanes, ice ages, eathquakes, volcanoes, deserts, ice caps, fragile ozone layers, etc. etc.
References :
#21 by novangelis at November 30th, 2009
If you change the rules enough, then life would be favored elsewhere. It would take a massive change to make life impossible.
Douglas Adams described your fallacy so well, ". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it?"
References :
#22 by RO-DA-6 at November 30th, 2009
i agree with that holy roller #3, you should get out more at night, my friend, to see "how" the earth spins and the whole rotation of every other planet and star that evolves to reach a new level of existence.
References :
PLATORA[Y]
#23 by LARRY at November 30th, 2009
I am not an atheist however I am not convinced that there is a creator so I try to study and learn in order to find the best answer at the moment I would be called an agnostic ( one who is unsure of the truth but is looking for the truth)
There are 2 possibilities:
!) A creator developed this earth so that it would be a great home for all of his creations.
2) Because this planet has such a great environment life has formed and developed on this planet.
Lets just hope that no matter how we got here , MAN does not screw it up.
References :
#24 by Darrol P at November 30th, 2009
Science does in fact dispute that the universe was "specifically designed" to support life on earth.
Science does not deny the obvious that conditions developed that came to support life. Science just sees a lot of contingent events (event that more or less happened by chance) coming together to result in life.
If you hold to the notion of "design", the designer must take responsibility for where the design results in what appears to be great cruelty. The design of the hawk’s talon is perfect for catching its prey. Is this design ideal for the prey?
Since it appears that we are a small part of a relative insignificant solar system in an average galaxy, and since it so far appears there is no other life–what is all this vast array of lifeless waste for?
It is either awfully cold or awfully hot in other parts of the universe.
References :
#25 by creatrix, eggnogstic at November 30th, 2009
Well… look up. There are lots and lots of stars, right?
And most of them have a few planets orbiting around them. we’re talking TRILLIONS of planets. (I think Eleventy’s or Vishal’s or Jonjon’s numbers are more accurate than mine. Once you get past a trillion, it’s just "a lot" to me!)
Doesn’t make sense that out of all of those trillions of planets, one might be in the right position to support life?
References :
#26 by Not Guilty! at November 30th, 2009
I am not an Atheist but I do understand why agnostics have doubts and why people have faith. I am not going to get into the faith part of it because that is not the question here. However I will try to explain the other side of the coin. I think 3, has a good point, it is possible that a series of geological factors created a environment that is capable of manifesting life at the most basic form and through evolution over millions of years we know have intelligent life on earth. If you want more specifics on how this could occur goggle abiogenesis. As far as the creation of all matter in the universe, goggle superconductors/super-accelerators, this is a scientific experiment that was terminated before it came to fruition, it was an attempt to proof the theory of how matter can be created for anti-matter at an exponential rate from a single point know as the center of the universe.
I hope this will clarify why people can have doubts.
References :
#27 by sjpatejak at November 30th, 2009
I’m afraid you put the cart before the horse. Life evolved on earth in response to the pre-existing conditions. We can show this by seeing how life adapted when conditions on earth were very different. During the Permian Period (290-245 million years ago), arthropods grew to enormous size: dragonflies with 3-foot wingspans, 2-foot long scorpions, and 7-foot long millipedes. All of these creatures exist today, but none even approach that size. Why the change? Back then there was a lot more oxygen in the atmosphere, and the respiratory systems of arthropods could bring in enough oxygen to support that much body mass. Today, with lower atmospheric oxygen content, arthropods can’t breathe in enough to get any bigger than they are.
References :
#28 by Tardis Girl at November 30th, 2009
Consider that well over 99% of the universe is practically dead, and does not harbor life of any sort. What about the super large black holes in the center of most galaxies? Or the dark matter that most things are made of, but that is not alive.
There are trillions of planets, trillions of stars, and billlions of galaxies, and none of the few planets we know of in our solar system (except earth) harbor life. It’s more likely to me that we were the lucky exception and evolved to meet specific conditions, and that the Anthropic principle makes it difficult to ask questions of the prevalence of life in the universe or of the existence of gods (if we didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be here to ask the question in the first place).
Also note that homo sapiens are the only species known to have a concept of gods, yet there are billions of lifeforms on our planet that are indifferent to the whole issue. I won’t rule it out, I just find the concept incredibly unlikely.
References :
atheist
#29 by bocasbeachbum at November 30th, 2009
Your assumption, which all arrogant fundies posses, is that there is no life anywhere eles in the universe. Of the billions upon billions of galaxys out there and the trillions upon trillions of stars, only an arrogant twit thinks that we are alone in the universe. Even as unique you may think we are the posibilities that the same or similar processes occured somehwhere else is real.
References :
#30 by Marina C at November 30th, 2009
I am angry at atheism and especially since yesterday the news reported that now the atheists want to take out the word "God" from all our anthems, and other governmental sayings, etc. I think we the true Christians should run the atheirsts out of this country which was founded on God and His love. And it says "we the people" in our government too, so we should use that to give us the power to run them off.
First, the other planets, God once had a plan to have them inahabited, but the devil and his angels, who ran the beautifications process of this plan (relatives of the atheirsts nowadays) wanted to be greater than God and sinned in a big way and were rjected by God forever. So therefore those planets will lay barren forever probably too.
Yes as you can see in Genesis, earth is the only planet inhabitable and it is because of God’s plan, love and His wondrous ways of knowing how to do everything and science can’t explain none of that because science is just a theory and cannot be proven but God is true 100% and He has proven everything He has promised!!
References :
The Bible