Question:
Why is everything just right for life on earth?
Matthew T
2010-05-05 03:49:29 UTC
cosmologists are more divided than ever. Why is everything just right for life on earth? And how have we tried to explain this? (from Paul Davies - The Goldilocks Enigma)

While the Goldilocks Enigma may not prove that a Creator exists, just the fact that the scientific community has tackled the problem shows that it is evidence for a Creator that requires an answer.

Even if skeptics are confident that science will eventually come up with some kind of explanation, the Big Bang is still evidence of a Creator. Einstein recognized this evidence immediately which is why he introduced a falsified constant into his equations which then predicted a steady state universe.
Fifteen answers:
Lighting the Way to Reality
2010-05-05 03:56:32 UTC
You are flat out wrong about Einstein's motivation for introducing the cosmological constant. At that time, the Big Bang had not yet been conceived. Einstein's original equations actually indicated that a steady state universe would not be stable. That is why he introduced his cosmological constant into his theory; it was to compensate for the supposed instability.



(EDIT: Einstein's original equations indicated that the universe had to be either expanding or contracting. At the time, there was no evidence for either, and the assumption was that neither was occurring. That is why he introduced the cosmological constant. So your characterization of his motivation is a flat-out lie.)



When it was found out later that the universe was actually expanding, and the universe was not at a steady state, it turned out that his original equations were actually correct and predicted the expansion as one of the two possibilities. Einstein subsequently said that the introduction of the cosmological constant was his greatest blunder.



You should get your facts straight.



Your other arguments are just as invalid.



Added:



The Big Bang is not evidence of a creator. And it sure as hell isn't evidence of the mythical, primitive, abhorrent tribal god that the ancient Israelites believed in.



The view of the cosmos that is found in the Bible is flat out contrary to what we have found out about the actual cosmos.



According to Ecclesiastes 1:5 the sun actually goes around the earth--as, of course, it must, since, according to Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, and 1 Chr 16:30, the earth does not move. And the earth cannot move because, according to 1 Samuel 2:8 and Ps 75:3, it is placed on pillars. And because it is placed on pillars, it has an underside and an upper side, as confirmed by Isaiah 40:22 which indicates that the earth is a flat disk.



(If earth were a sphere it would not have an under side and an upper side. The Hebrew word translated as "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 is chuwg, which means "circle" not "sphere." Strong's Concordance: "circle"..."describe a circle." Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: "Circle...the earth conceived as a disc, Is 40:22." Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: "draw round, make a circle." If a sphere were meant, the Hebrew word duwr would have been used.)



Since the biblical earth is flat, it has an underside and under the earth is the abyss, which is referred to several times in the Bible. That is also what is being referred to in Job 26:7 when it says that the earth hangs over nothing. Job 26:7 implies that the earth has an upper side and an underside, which the actual earth does not have. (The original Hebrew word translated as "upon" in that passage in the KJV also means "over.") The actual sphere of the earth in space is not "suspended' or "hanging" "over" or "upon" nothing. It is orbiting the sun at 66,700 miles per hour.



There are several other verses in the Bible indicating the earth is flat. Nebuchadnezzar's vision in Dan 4:10-11 clearly indicates the earth is flat (if it were not flat the tree could not be seen from all the earth), and Dan 2:28 states that the visions of Nebuchadnezzar are from God. If the biblical god says the biblical earth is flat, it must be flat.



The original Hebrew word translated as firmament is raqiya. That is a noun derived from the Hebrew word raqa, which is a verb meaning "to beat out." That term is used in the bible in reference to beating out metal into plates or expanses of the metal (as in Exodus 39:3). So raqiya, as a noun, would literally mean "that which is beaten out."



The idea is that the firmament, or sky, is a solid, beaten out expanse or vault set on the rim of the flat disk of the earth. The firmament holds back the waters that are above the firmament, as stated in Genesis. If the firmament were not solid, it could not hold back the waters.



This understanding is confirmed in Job 37:18, which states:



"Can you beat out the vault of the skies as he does,

hard as a mirror of cast metal?" (New English Bible. .)



There, the Hebrew word translated as "beat out" (or "spread out" in other versions) is, as noted above, raqa.



Also, the stars in the biblical cosmos are just lights set in the firmament. As mere lights in the sky, they will fall to the earth in the Last Days (Matt 24:29), something that is ridiculous considering the actual stars are other suns and many times larger than the earth.



Some might say that the language of such things is just poetic allusion. If that is so, how does one determine what is allusion and what is not? Even if it is poetry, that does not mean that it cannot reflect what the writers of the Bible actually believed. And if the Bible is the word of god and god does not lie, would he make statements that are not factual even if they are in the form of poetry? Moreover, the above descriptions provide a coherent, structurally consistent view of the biblical cosmos and that view is consistent throughout the whole Bible.



So, if god is not a liar, and the Bible is god's word, then the present, modern-day view of the cosmos is totally wrong.



On the other hand, if one fully accepts the modern, present-day view of the cosmos as factual, then one would have to conclude that either god is a liar or the Bible is not the word of god.



Added:



There are trillions of planets in the universe. The odds are therefore that a very large number of planets are capable of supporting life. We just happen to be on one of them.



Added:

What I said above is not off subject.



You are the one who introduced the idea of a creator. I was emphasizing that that creator could not be the god of the Bible, and it is that god that most of the answerers, including you, associate with the idea of a creator. It is therefore disingenuous of you to say that what I said is off subject, since your whole motivation, regardless of whether you voiced it or not, was to confirm the god of the Bible as that creator.



Added:



And you did not apologize for your reprehensible false characterization of Einstein.



Added:



I am still waiting for you to apologize for your false character assassination of Einstein.
sparky_dy
2010-05-05 04:04:32 UTC
Because life on Earth adapted to the prevailing conditions. Really, this is a meaningless question. You might as well ask why a balloon is the right size for the amount of air in it.



Anyway, everything isn't just right. Many species are so specialised, that they can only live in certain places. There are entire localised ecosystems where every species is dependent on every other species. And while physicists may well be qualified to speak on matters of physics, it's significant that Paul Davis is not an evolutionary biologist -- which is two or three layers up from physics.



***** EDIT *****

OK, then. Why did life *start* on Earth? Because the correct conditions for life to start just happened to be present here. No reason, just dumb luck. It helps enormously that H2O can exist in all 3 states on Earth. There may well be other planets with life, but we haven't discovered them yet.
?
2016-06-02 12:28:54 UTC
"If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe." Mass-energy may be limited, and the amount of USABLE energy may be decreasing, but that does not necessarily signify the end of the universe caused by the lack of energy to do work. The amount of energy remains the same. Total equilibrium of energy or "heat" in the universe does not mean the energy ceases to exist. It means that all things that require work as a function of energy to exist can no longer exist. However, the total amount of mass-energy will remain the same. You can state will absolute assurance that the universe has a beginning, only if you have absolute proof that the universe has an end. "The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning" Can we be absolutely sure that the universe had a beginning? If it has no end it has no beginning. Therefore it could have always existed. If "God" does not need a cause because He always existed, then why would a universe need a cause if it has always existed? How can we not be sure that the universe will not exist eternally in a state of equilibrium? What if the universe was not created for the purpose of human beings? "Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity." I agree with you there. Of course, a cause cannot be caused by itself. This is valid logic. On the other hand I do have one ponderous thought about time and God. If he caused the universes' beginning, he is a cause. Therefore, would he not be able to produce both cause and effects at His will? Time, like you've stated, "Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space.", is a rate of change. However, I believe that time is a product of any type of change. Or cause and effect. Therefore, would God not be living in his own time? Whether it be constantly varying in speed or not. As he is acting or changing time passes as an effect. Time will not exist only when absolutely nothing exists, including God. However, I am not stating with for a fact that there is not a beginning to the universe. I am simply using logic to seek the truth. However, like all humans I make mistakes because I do not know everything. I am simply using my understanding of what I "know" to produce logical explanations. Maybe there is information out there that proves the universe did begin at a certain instant and that all things in it followed. This is a very interesting question. I like that you used logic to support your argument. That is how it should be done. And don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to disprove you here. I want the same thing you want. The truth. I have questions and I am simply trying to find the answer.
2010-05-05 04:01:46 UTC
There is SOOOO much of the universe- probably way more than you have even imagined, where we haven't found life yet, and much more that is too hostile for life to begin with.



Not to mention, animals get killed all the time by earth conditions- remember the earthquakes and the hurricanes? And this has been going on the entire time there was life- remember Pompaii where 20,000 people died in one day by being boiled alive and suffocated by hot lava and smoke?



Also, the fact that we are here cannot be backworked into "there is a god". You cannot start with a conclusion and work to a premise. You're not using logic. You're trying to define something into existance.
2010-05-05 03:56:00 UTC
If you are tying to imply that their being life on earth (and earth being a planet able to support life) means there is a creator, surely the next question would be



why the hell did the creator make several billion billion other planets, which clearly can't support life?



what an awful waste of creativity.
Acid Zebra
2010-05-05 03:51:49 UTC
"Why is everything just right for life on earth"



Is it? It's more like we manage to eke out an existence despite the universe doing its utmost to kill us. Ask the dinosaurs how fine-tuned the universe was for them. Life adapted to this planet, not the other way around. If you look at this planet in 500 million years steps starting from 3.5 billion years ago this is glaringly obvious.



"the Big Bang is still evidence of a Creator"



Assertion without evidence, dismissed as such.
Devilishly Sexy MasterMinD
2010-05-05 03:53:52 UTC
Basically, we made do with whatever minimum standards the Earth had for emergence of life.



If it was totally inhabitable, we would not have emerged on planet Earth, simple as that. It would have been like Mars or Pluto or the other ones in this solar system; lifeless and deserted.
Atheist1239
2010-05-05 04:21:08 UTC
The simplest explanation is that life will only develop on planets that are suitable for it to happen.

Therefore the planet was not "created" to accommodate life, life appeared because the planet was suitable for it.
2010-05-05 04:15:42 UTC
"cosmologists are more divided than ever."

Really?

I haven't heard that.



This planet was NOT created for us by a magic man.

We evolved to fit this planet's conditions... that is all.



“Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable… therefore, God exists.”

~
2010-05-05 03:54:51 UTC
earth is just the right distance from earth. venus is close enough that the environment is too hot. mars is far enough that it's too cold. also we have an atmosphere, right elements that could create life, and also the moon plays a very important role.
Regwah
2010-05-05 04:01:12 UTC
I like Paul Davies, I read the mind of God.
redwire
2010-05-05 03:54:00 UTC
the earth wasn't made to accomidate life, life had to accomidate to it
Fo.B
2010-05-05 03:52:21 UTC
i think life is right for this planet rather than this planet right for life
Leo
2010-05-05 03:53:53 UTC
Were you too busy copying and pasting to realize that this was all nonsense? Apparently so.
Lyss Q
2010-05-05 03:52:44 UTC
It's called evolution. Earth isn't right for us; we're right for earth.

No, I am not an atheist.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...