This actually ironic because I doubt that you know that he's making that face at a stupid religious statement that O'Reilly made.
1x1040,000 is the odds of life arising by random chance. 1x1080 is the number of atoms in the know universe. It's not going to happen. If any of the forces such as nuclear weak and strong forces, gravity, or electromagnetism were off by a fraction of a percent, the universe would not be liveable.
A universe without the weak nuclear force could perhaps form the same universe.
Also, this argument is really backwards. First, life developed around the properties of nature, and that makes the argument circular because life would have developed around its circumstances. Second, if we are amazed at "just how perfect" the Earth is for us, we obviously miss how the Earth is far from perfect. Although conditions on Earth are generally ideal
for the life living on it now, there are still some flaws which keep it from being anywhere near perfect.
Life could have had many possibilities just as the light bulb has many possibilities to run today, some more feasible than others. If you think about it, the life we have today is actually pretty flawed: that thing called mutations, which both hurt and help species to both die out and survive. Just as the light bulb has many possibilities to produce the same outcome of light, there are many different conditions under which life could produce the same output as we see on our planet right now.
Poll