Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Researchers: Earth may not be the most life-friendly planet

arroba Email
An illustration of a number of the different kinds of planets found by Kepler all lined up in a row.
types of planets Kepler found/NAA

How do they know? Computer modeling.

“It shows us that conditions on some exoplanets with favourable ocean circulation patterns could be better suited to support life that is more abundant or more active than life on Earth.”…

We know that salty oceans are likely out there, beyond the Solar System. In addition to Earth, we know Mars was once rather watery, for instance. And there are the moons, too – Europa, Enceladus, Callisto and Ganymede number among the large moons in the Solar System that appear to have liquid oceans.

These nearby worlds don’t meet the criteria laid out by the research, though. Mars is dry and has a thin whisper of an atmosphere, and the moons listed have barely-there atmospheres as well; we’re also currently unsure of their continental status.

But there are a lot more exoplanets out there in the galaxy than there are moons in the Solar System.

Michelle Starr, “Study: There May Be Exoplanets Out There Even Better Suited For Life Than Earth” at ScienceAlert

The research would sound more meaningful if a single extraterrestrial life form of any sort had ever been found.

Hat tip: Futurism

See also: Rob Sheldon: Don’t Give Up All ET Hope Due To Recent Exoplanet Disappointment

Follow UD News at Twitter!

So we can imagine worlds that are, in our limited way of thinking, "better" than Earth in some vaguely stated ways. Then we construct a computer model based on our limited knowledge of our own specialty. Then we play with the model to "show" how Earth "could be better" for life. Then we publish a paper, thereby justifying our salaries and the fun we had playing god. Does the model run for billions of simulated years in a solar system to see if the "better" conditions persist? Does the model explain how the "better" conditions came to pass, based on known (or half-understood) mechanisms of planet formation and development? This smacks of the same attitude that says humans could not have been designed because, in the speaker's personal view, the human body is not well designed; usually stated by someone who has never designed anything. Fasteddious
"we know Mars was once rather watery," We do not know any such thing, it is assumed without evidence. Students of the planet are unable to consider any other process that might have formed the channels they see. They deny electrical effects even as lightning dances in their videos. NASA announces discovery of water every time somebody gets hungry, farts, or dies. SmartAZ
All the indications are that Earth was designed and constructed orbiting the PERFECT star, at the PERFECT distance, with a LARGE MOON and a bunch of GIANT PLANETS as meteor shields. And, by the astronomically precise conditions of the collision that formed our Moon and perfected Earth itself, we have an UNUSUALLY thin crust and a HUGE (double sized) Iron Core. But these bozos seriously attempt to second guess The Creator?? It is to laugh. vmahuna

Leave a Reply