(March 23, 2014 at 12:08 am)snowtracks Wrote:(March 22, 2014 at 2:24 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And what evidence do you have that suggests that the universe appears to be designed to support life?
Because the vast majority of it is utterly inimical to life.
for starters on the macro level: earth resides in what's is a safe spot in the milky ways galactic habitable zone which a narrow ring that encircles a spiral arm type galaxy. this ring area is protect from the galactic core radiation and where a variety of heavy elements and isotopes are available that advance life requires, however not all areas within the ring can support life due to radiation originating from supernovas, spiral arms, dense molecular clouds and super-giant stars. so only about 1% of U's planets would meet this one basic criteria (extrapolate from the milky way data). this of course doesn't eliminate the chance development originating from a naturalistic model but certain reducing the possibilities. however, all the galaxies that don't support life are actually needed to support earthly life within the creation model. God doesn't create without a purpose.
http://space.about.com/od/frequentlyaske...Galaxy.htm
Zen's question was about 'life', not about "earthly life." Giving evidence that earthly life could only exist in a narrow band is irrelevant to whether the universe is tuned for life in general. So you gave an answer to the wrong question. "Fail."
On top of that, even if you had answered the right question, you'd have been supporting Zen's point that, because so little of the universe is suitable for life, it doesn't appear particularly well tuned to produce life.
Double fail.