That’s a a crap analogy. No, my question was quite clear from the start. I’m not interested in romanticism but from a scientific perspective.
Venus which has no liquid water and whose surface is a sweltering 870 degrees Fahrenheit which is uninhabitable. Science does not answer anywhere, why all these other planets are just a lump of random matter and in there natural state ‘ugly’ and not ‘beautiful habitable condition like earth.
I once posed the same question to a Cosmologist at Jodrell Bank who basically said there is no scientific answer ! A vicar who was also in the audience then gave the Genesis lecture about the earth being formed in 7 days etc. There is equally no evidence of that either to add balance !
I have always been interested in this subject since I watched the Apollo missions in the 60s/70s. Hopefully, in my lifetime there will be a scientific explanation as to why. Maybe we will never know ?
It's an reasonable analogy. You've just missed the point because you continue to conflate 'beauty' with objective observation and demand that planetary science explain why you have a certain completely subjective outlook that owes more to sociology than it does to physics.
Science does explain why the planets are formed they way they are, and if you think it's "random" you need to go back and read those links again - there's a reason why the inner planets are rocky and the outer ones gaseous.
Beautiful and habitable are two totally different concepts and you confuse yourself by conflating the two.
Beauty - beyond the remit of planetary science, because the very notion of beauty is personal and subjective. Furthermore, the ideal of 'natural beauty' of the Earth is a relatively recent phenomenon- again, I would urge you to look at romanticism and the reaction to the industrial revolution.
Habitable is a scientific concept, but one which is hindered by the observer paradox - we can observe our habitable planet because it is habitable. If it weren't we wouldn't be here to study it. So if you're asking why Earth is in the 'goldilocks zone' - the answer is simply because it is. It's not a massive coincidence or the calling card of a divine planner - it's just where one planet happens to be. If it was somewhere else, there wouldn't be apes on it questioning why they are so lucky.
If you asked the cosmologist the same question you've asked here it sounds like she/he was giving an honest answer that you've misconstrued - science cannot answer questions of philosophy or aesthetics and makes no pretence to do so. If you wanted to know the meaning of beauty you were in the wrong lecture.
Regarding Venus, the explanations I've read are that it's closer distance to the Sun meant liquid water didn't form, but remained in the atmosphere starting a greenhouse effect, which became runaway as CO2 was then baked out of carbonates on the surface.
Earth was slightly cooler, allowing liquid water to form. This avoided the early green housing, and the CO2 remained largely within carbonates and the oceans formed from the water. There's about 50 Earth atmospheres of CO2 trapped in our rocks - if you baked out all of that and evaporated the oceans, we'd be like Venus too.
Venus also had a global repaying event - the lack of water in the mineral matrix prevents plate tectonics, meaning heat is trapped in the interior. At a critical point, it appears that that heat escaped during a global repaying event which would have helped accelerate the baking out of CO2. The greenhouse effect and repaving event seem to be a bit chicken and egg - without one the other might not have been so severe and Venus might have been more hospitable.
