2. Galaxy Size

The size of a galaxy can be destructive to the survivability of life. If a galaxy is too large, the infusion of gas and stars (and star interactions) would disturb too many star's orbits and ignite too many galactic eruptions. But if a galaxy is too small, there is an "insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time" to bring about life-sustaining conditions. -- 90% of galaxies are either too large or too small for life to exist there, and this means that 90% of the above galaxies (which occur in a suitable galaxy-cluster) are of the wrong size.

THE NUMBERS: Of the 50,000,000,000 galaxies left in #1, 10% are also of suitable size. This leaves 5,000,000,000 galaxies in which life could occur.

3. Galaxy Type

The only type of galaxy which can sustain life, is the "spiral" type. --If a galaxy is too elliptical, star formation ceases before sufficient heavy element build-up can occur for life chemistry. If a galaxy is too irregular, radiation exposure is too severe, and in addition, heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available. -- 30% of galaxies are either the irregular or elliptical type. --About 70% are the required spiral type.

. . . . . .
. . Elliptical Galaxy . . . . . Irregular Galaxy . . . . . Spiral Galaxy ...

THE NUMBERS: Of the 5,000,000,000 galaxies left in #2, 70% are also spiral types. This leaves 3,500,000,000 galaxies in which life could occur.

4. Galaxy Mass-Distribution

If the mass-distribution is too much and too dense in the central bulge, any candidate life-support planet in the rest of the galaxy will be exposed to too much radiation. BUT, if there is too much mass-distribution in the spiral arms, any candidate life-support planet will be destabilized by too much gravity and radiation from adjacent spiral arms and adjacent stars. -- 80% of spiral galaxies (above) are deadly to life in this regard.

THE NUMBERS: Of the 3,500,000,000 galaxies left in #3, 20% have suitable mass-distribution. This leaves 700,000,000 galaxies in which life could occur.

5. Galaxy Location

If a galaxy is too close to a rich galaxy cluster, that galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted to allow conditions for life. --OR if a galaxy is too close to very large galaxy(ies), that galaxy would also be too gravitationally disrupted to allow life. --OR if a galaxy is too far away from dwarf galaxies (required to produce needed gas and dust), then insufficient infall of gas and dust will occur to sustain ongoing star formation in order to sustain life. -- 90% of galaxies are in such a wrong location.

THE NUMBERS: Of the 700,000,000 galaxies left in #4, 10% have suitable galaxy locations. This leaves 70,000,000 galaxies in which life could occur.

6. Galaxy-Cluster Size

If a galaxy is located in a cluster (of galaxies) which is either too large or too small, the radiation and gravitational forces and gas-availability (for star-formation) will be wrong for sustaining life. -- 90% of galaxy-clusters are unsuitable for life in this parameter.

THE NUMBERS: Of the 70,000,000 galaxies left in #5, 10% have a suitable galaxy-cluster size. This leaves 7,000,000 galaxies in which life could occur.

7. Galaxy-Cluster Location

If a galaxy-cluster is located too close or too far from other galaxy-clusters this destroys the possibility of life-sustaining qualities near the stars of those galaxies. -- 90% of galaxy-clusters are deficient in this regard.

THE NUMBERS: Of the 7,000,000 galaxies left in #6, 10% have a suitable galaxy-cluster location. This leaves 700,000 galaxies in which life could occur.

8. Size of the Galactic Central Bulge

If the size of the galactic central bulge is too large, the radiation from the bulge region would kill life on a candidate life-support planet in any spiral arms. If the size of the galactic central bulge is too small, there would be inadequate infusion of gas and dust into the spiral arms, preventing solar type stars from forming at the right locations late enough in the galaxy's history. -- 80% of spiral galaxies have central bulges which are too large or too small for life to be supported.

THE NUMBERS: Of the 700,000 galaxies left in #7, 20% have a suitable central bulge size. This leaves 140,000 galaxies in which life could occur.

9. Proper Amount of Galactic Dust

If the amount of dust is too small, star and planet formation rate is inadequate; and star and planet formation occurs too late in the galaxy's history; and there is not enough dust to block out too much exposure to deadly stellar ultraviolet radiation. BUT, if the amount of dust is too large, star and planet formation occurs too soon and at too high of a rate, and there are too many collisions and orbit perturbations in the galaxy and in the planetary system. -- In 90% of galaxies, the amount of galactic dust is either too small or too large for life-support.

10. Giant-Star Density in Galaxy

If the giant-star density is too small, there is an insufficient production of galactic dust; and deadly radiation unblocked; and ongoing star formation impeded. BUT, if the giant-star density is too large, too much galactic dust forms; and too many stars form too early disrupting the formation of a solar-type star at the right time and under the right conditions for life.

11. Frequency of Nearby Gamma-Ray Bursts

If this rate is too high, there would be too many mass extinctions of life for the maintenance of long-lived, multi-cellular species. -- 95% of galaxies have a too high a rate of gamma-ray bursts.

12. Dwarf Galaxy Absorption Rate

If too many dwarf galaxies are absorbed, too much gas and dust is absorbed, causing too many stars form too early disrupting the formation of a solar-type star at the right time and under the right conditions for life. BUT, if too few dwarf galaxies are absorbed, then there is an insufficient infall of gas and dust to sustain ongoing star formation. -- 90% of spiral galaxies have too many or too few dwarf galaxies absorbed at the proper rate to produce conditions to sustain life.

NOTE: In reality, the above 12 parameters are not all of the qualities and situations which may seriously limit the suitability of planets within those galaxies to support life --and especially advanced life. There are a good number more, such as the density of giant galaxies in the early universe; the masses of stars which become hypernovae; the frequency (& closeness) of hypernovae eruptions; the frequency (& closeness) of supernovae eruptions; the number (& closeness) of white dwarf binaries; the timing of solar nebula formation; the density of nearby quasars; the decay rate of cold dark matter particles; and the amount of silicate dust annealing by nebular shocks. --For a fuller list, see Dr. Ross's article entitled: "Fine Tuning For Life In The Universe".

13. Highly Symmetrical Spiral Arms For Billions of Years (Required For Advanced Life)

Distortions between spiral arms (e.g. "spurs" or "feathers") make even a spiral galaxy too unstable for advanced life to exist (or maybe any life). To maintain arm symmetry, consistent infusions of gas-rich, small, dwarf galaxies (less than 1/70th the size of the medium-sized galaxy) are required.

Parameters Which Limit Life-Possibilities Within A Galaxy

We will now narrow down the search to within a single galaxy: Within The Milky Way --since it is the only known "highly symmetrical" galaxy. So we will be considering some of the parameters which limit the suitability of a "parent" star around which a prospective life-hosting planet might orbit. Therefore, we will start with the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy, which is about 250,000,000,000 stars.

If the star is too near the center, galactic radiation would be too great and deadly; also stellar density would disturb planetary orbits; also, there would be wrong abundances of silicon, sulfur, and magnesium relative to iron for appropriate planet core characteristics. BUT, if the star is too far from the galactic center, the quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets; and there would be wrong abundances of silicon, sulfur, and magnesium relative to iron for appropriate planet core characteristics. -- 80% of the stars in any spiral galaxy are too near or too far from the galactic center for life-support; thus, only 20% of the stars in a spiral galaxy are in its "habitable zone" (marked by the green circle).

. . . In reality, what is popularly called a "habitable zone" in the news should actually be Much more narrowly defined.

THE NUMBERS: Of the 250,000,000,000 stars in the galaxy, 20% are a suitable distance from the galactic center: in the "habitable zone." This leaves 50,000,000,000 stars in the Milky Way (& probably the universe) near which life might survive.

15. Parent Star's Age

If star's age is too old or too young, the luminosity of the star changes too quickly for stable life-support. -- 60% of stars are the wrong age to maintain stable luminosity suitable for life-support.

16. Parent Star's Mass

If the star's mass is too great, the luminosity of the star would change too quickly; and the star would burn too rapidly and too hot for lengthy enough life-support. (e.g., If the Sun in our solar system were one of the most massive and hottest stars, all of the liquids and lighter things on earth would boil and burn off) ...BUT, if the star's mass is too small, the range of suitable planet distances for life would be too narrow and close; also, tidal forces would disrupt the life planet's rotational period to rapidly; also, UV radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen.
-- 99.9% of all stars have the wrong mass for proper luminosity, burning rate, UV radiation, and proper range of suitable planet distances for life-support. In other words, 1/10th of 1% are OK in this regard.

17. Parent Star's Metallicity

If the star's metal-content is too small, then insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist. BUT, if its metal-content is too large, then radioactivity would be too intense for life; also, life would be poisoned by to large of concentrations of heavy elements. -- 95% of all stars have a metallicity which is too small or too large for suitable life-support on nearby planets.

18. Star Rotation Rate

If the rotation rate of the parent star too slow, then the star's magnetic field will be too weak, resulting in not enough protection from cosmic rays for the life-support planet. BUT, if the rotation rate is too fast, then there will be too much chromospheric emission, causing radiation problems for the life-support planet. -- 70% of stars have a rotation rate which is too slow or too fast to support life nearby.

19. Close Encounters With Nearby Stars

If the parent star has a close-encounter(s) with a nearby star(s) (e.g. binary star systems), then any living things on nearby planets would be killed by extreme radiation, and the orbits of planets would be disrupted --and the host planets possibly absorbed into one of the stars-- destroying all life-forms. -- 99% of stars have too close of encounters with other stars, which destroys the possibilities of life during the suitable age of candidate stars.

20. Parent Star's Carbon-to-Oxygen Ratio

The parent star must produce a host planet with a carbon-to-oxygen ratio which is suitable to produce the various building blocks of life, without producing a state of lethal amounts of oxygen or too much carbon in the environment. -- 99% of stars have such an unsuitable ratio for the support of living things.

21. Solar Wind's Strength and Variability

If the solar wind of the parent star is too strong, then too few cosmic ray protons reach planet's troposphere causing too little cloud formation. But if the solar wind is too weak, then too many cosmic ray protons reach planet's troposphere causing too much cloud formation. -- 90% of stars have winds which are too strong or too weak to cause a suitable amount of cloud formation for suitable water and weather cycles for sustaining life.

Not only do galaxies and stars have parameters which they must satisfy in order to support life, but in addition a candidate planet must satisfy a good number of requirements as well, for example:

1. The planet must be the right distance from its star ...if it is too close (such as Mercury or Venus), the surface stays too hot for life, and the star's winds and radiation strips the planet of free gases. -- Or if the planet is too far from its star (eg Mars), then it stays too cold. -- (In this regard, only 1 planet out of 1000 is suitable for life-support.)
(Precision Required: A 2% change in the earth's distance from the Sun would make it unable to host possibly even microbial life --but especially advanced life.)

. . . Again, what is often called a "habitable zone" in the news should actually be Much more narrowly defined.

THE NUMBERS: Of the total planets orbiting around the 3 stars left in #21 (say, 1000 planets), .1% orbit at the right distance from their star. This leaves about 1 planet in the Milky Way (& probably the universe) near which life could survive. -- but there are still more limiting factors which are critical...

2.The planet's rotation-period must not be too slow or fast. If the planet rotates too slow, one side will boil while the other side freezes. - (Only 10% of planets are passable in this regard.)

3.The planet's orbit must be almost circular ...not too eccentric, which puts the planet either too close for part of the orbit (making it too hot) or too far from its star for part of its orbit (making it too cold). - (Only 30% of planets are OK in this regard.)

(From an article in usatoday.com on 3-31-05: The overwhelming majority of the alien planets found have been in eccentric orbits, and Paul Butler, the co-discoverer of two-thirds of the known extra solar planets, comments: "I think with the data at hand, we can say that our solar system is rare. Eccentricity dominates. --It's just a matter of how rare we are." - (Ref.: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-03-31-solar-system-special_x.htm)

--Probability: 3 chances out of 100 that the 1 remaining planet in the universe would be suitable for life to exist on it.

4. The planet's mass (and gravity) must not be too large or too small - (In this regard, only 1 planet out of 1000 is suitable for life. ---An example of a planet with too little mass, is Mars, which could not hold onto its atmosphere and most of its water, and is now a wasteland, unable to support life (especially higher life). An example of a planet with too much mass and gravity, is Jupiter, which is a massive giant and could not support life.)

--Probability: 3 chances out of 100,000 that the 1 remaining planet in the universe would be suitable for life to exist on it.

5.The planet's axis-tilt must be within tolerances. If the axis points toward the host star, that end of the planet will boil, while the end pointing away will stay frozen. - (In this regard, only 30% of planets are suitable for life.)

6. The planet must be basically solid and rocky ...not gaseous. - (Of the 150 planets discovered between 1995 and 2005, almost all of them were gas giants --like Jupiter-- and not suited for life).

In considering the above 6 parameters, only about one planet out of 100 million would be suitable for life, but the list of qualifiers for a planet is even more extensive, and can be seen in the above articles by Dr. Ross.

In support of these findings, an article in usatoday.com on 3-31-05 states:
"A habitable planet has liquid water on its surface, explained Margaret Turnbull of the Carnegie Institute of Washington. Thus far, 90% of all detected alien planets have host stars that can flare and sterilize the surface of the planet. Furthermore, planets, which are that close to their host star, would be in a synchronous orbit. This means that only one side of the planet would face the host star and all potential water on that side would evaporate and go to its "dark" side."

Astronomers are now upscaling into a period of heightened planet-hunting, and I welcome any new statistics in regard the suitability of most planets and star-systems for life, in order to refine or correct the points made by this article.

Conclusions

1. It is highly UNlikely that there are any planets in the universe which have life on them (especially intelligent life) if all the parameters and chances of life-permitting favorability are taken into consideration. -- Dr. Ross gives more than 300 parameters which would need to be fulfilled for life to exist anywhere in the universe, and he explains that for them to be filled by chance occurrence would be one chance out of 10²⁸² . . . but there are only about 10²⁴ stars in the entire universe!

2. The chance of a life-supporting planet-sun system occurring randomly in our present universe is so small that it is quite reasonable to conclude that the highly unlikely existence of our sun-earth system may very well be the result of an intelligent designer. - Look up: "Anthropic Principle."

THE DRAKE EQUATION: Dr. Frank Drake composed an equation to calcualte the probability of the existence of an extraterrestrial civilization on another planet somewhere in the universe, which might send out communications. The Drake equation is: N = Rs . fp . ne . fl . fi . fc . L Where: N is the Number of civilizations with which intelligent communications might be possible, and Rs is the average rate of star formation, and fp is the fraction of those stars which have planets, and ne is the average number of planets with environments able to support life, and fl is the fraction of planets that could support life, which actually do develop life, and fi is the fraction of planets with life that go on to develop intelligent civilized life, and fc is the fraction of planets with civilized life which develops technology for space communications, and L is the length of time for which civilizations release communications into space. OBSERVATIONS: It is of crucial significance (with regard to the Drake equation), that the factors described (above) in this testingworldviews.com article would seem to strongly indicate that --considering the probabilities-- the value for ne is essentially zero, and the existence of earth with its environment is an almost totally unlikely fluke of nature --or it is a designed environment. --In addition, after considering the information given in the testingworldviews.com article on Abiogenesis-- the value for fl is also essentially zero, and there is no evidence that any life has ever developed from non-living bio-chemicals. Such an event cannot reasonably be expected to have happened anywhere in the universe ...and there is no proof that Abiogenesis was the source of the first life here on earth. --Whatsmore, since every additional protein (required for the development of life more advanced than a bacterium) --is extremely unlikely to originate by random selection of its amino acid parts-- the value for fi is also essentially zero. Therefore, with three values in the Drake equation being virtually equal to zero, the value for "N" must be zero... and it should come as no surprise that mankind never picks up any communication from any other civilizations out in space.

Arrogance?

Some people think it is "arrogant" to say that Earth is evidently the only planet in the universe with life on it. --But why so? Evidence is just evidence. Facts are just facts, and should not be evaluated according to emotions or desires, which would be an unscientific approach. If the facts at hand are where the evidence leads, there is not necessarily any arrogance involved, but it may be just a rational analysis and conclusion. Instead, it would appear that some people are merely afraid to follow evidence where it leads, and theirs is apparently an emotional reaction to the facts as they currently stand. They may be arrogantly holding on to their views.

And some say that there may be other universes in which alien life-forms could exist. --However, there is no empirical evidence to indicate that such a speculative notion has a good chance of actually being true. Thus far, the idea of alternate universes is only an imaginary abstraction without supporting evidence of any plausible reality. And such a speculation would make no difference in the unlikelihood of other intelligent life in our universe?

Still others maintain that alien life may have a different chemical basis than life on Earth, ...which we can't rule it out. We must remain open to this possibility. -- However, there has never been a coherent description of what different chemical bases alien life-forms could take, including the required chemical methods for the building of things analogous to proteins, DNA, and energy-storage/processing systems that could all plausibly function together to keep something alive.

Furthermore, physicist Robert Dicke maintains that if there are other life-forms, he says they must be based on carbon. --Boron and silicon can form complex molecules, but boron is extremely rare, and silicon can only form a chain of no more than about 100 amino acids, which is most probably too short and simple for a fully functioning life-form. Thus, we can reasonably state that life must be carbon-based. Therefore, we can discuss the minimum requirements for life, as is done on this website on the page about "Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature".

Identity of The Designer

In light of the above considerations, we therefore have strong evidence that our solar system was intentionally designed by the purposeful work of a designer, however, the specific identity of the designer does not seem to be (as yet) apparent from an investigation of only nature. It does not even appear that we can necessarily conclude that the designer is an omnipotent being, since all of the designed things we might consider are finite things, for which a finite designer could be adequate (...however, it would seem that an almost unfathomably powerful and intelligent designer would be necessary, due to the magnitude of the universe, and the complexity of designed things).

---Still, if you will read further in this website, you may agree that there is an excellent body of evidence which indicates that the Bible is a supernaturally produced piece of literature, the true Word of God. ...and the Bible claims to identify the living God (and Jesus Christ) who did the intelligent designing of all things. If you want to read about such evidence concerning the Bible, click on this link: "Prophecy Proves the Bible's Authority."

--Concerning Jesus Christ, the Bible says: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:3). Similarly, it says: "For by him allthings were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible" (Colossians 1:16).

A "Waste of Space"?

Some people feel that if Earth is the only planet with intelligent life on it, that this is a "waste of space." --But this doesn't make sense.
According to my reading in astronomy, the general age of the universe was needed in order to properly generate and gather all the elements used for living things. And the neighboring stars we needed to produce the necessary elements. --Space was not wasted at all.

And furthermore, the unfathomable immensity and powers of the universe --as well as its beauty-- is a great glory to God. And what's more: The rarity of habitable places is not a bad thing, because it showcases the marvelous designing work of God. --Space is not wasted at all.

YOU, dear reader are loved by God, and that's why Jesus Christ came!

Related Sites & Articles:

• Reasons to Believe - with Dr. Hugh Ross - Showing how breakthrough discoveries in the sciences confirm Intelligent Design and enhance the scientific case for the God of the Bible.
• The Fine-Tuning Design Argument - by Robin Collins
• The Designed 'Just So' Universe - by Walter L. Bradley, Ph.D.
• How to Calculate Probabilities - by Dr. Hale
• GOD AND THE BIG BANG...and Other Arguments... - by Mike Poole

Old Earth Articles :

- - (TestingWorldviews.com stance is that the best evidence points to an old earth --and that the Bible teaches this perspective.)