So far you haven't argued anything, put forth any intelligent discourse on any topic, other than insults. At least I am brave enough to argue points. You are not. That speaks for itself.
There are many factors that must be in place very precisely in order for life to exist. You got the cart before the horse at the start ... that variables line up when life is present doesn't imply these variables were manipulated by an intelligence to be so ordered, scientifically that is. Here are some examples: Thickness of the earth's crust - any thinner or thicker, life would be impossible; This is incorrect, and it is now theorized that life arose within the earth, not on the surface ... and you are offering a theory, so I felt competing theories are in order ozone layer - any thicker or thinner, life would be impossible; This is an assumption based on a very limited sampling of life and taking as its axiom that life must arise on the surface of a planet distance of earth from sun; Not even a fixed requirement since energy from gravitational tides can accomplish the necessary available energy for life size and intensity of sun; another too limited assumption since a larger sun with a wider orbit planet will also work presencea and location of Jupiter which keeps solar system stable; a binary star system could accomplish a similar stability location of sun in between two spiral arms in milky way galaxy - if sun were on a spiral arm, life would be impossible; This is a novel assumption, possibly based on taking the previous faulty assumptions as axiomatic ... The odds of another planet having ALL of these factors is beyond the realm of possibility. I don't doubt it! You've cited such a long range of faulty axioms that it would be remarkable indeed to have life arise with everyone of these limitations as you've assumed them.
Of course, your assumptions are clearly agenda laden since so many of them are framed as self fulfilling and so many depend on the acceptable axiomatic state of the previously stated faulty assumptions. Sorry, I don't think you're doing too well with your line of argumentation. Oddly, I am firmly convinced that the universe (and we only have a limited experience with the entire universe, the realm of the Angels being one example realm well beyond our sensing as yet) is a creation of intelligent design.
The best argument I've ever read for this universe being other than a chance event is based on the likely span of time required for chance events to have brought life from the lifeless ... the believed age of the universe is way short of the necessary time span needed to insure life arise from chance, then intellignet life develop from simple life arisen from a lifeless background. Interestingly, just calculating a time span in which chance could work doesn't preclude the chance of it arising early on in the span required to assure it arise. I supposed that's the luck factor, but I don't give much credence to luck. [Actually, I'm strange in that I believe life is sourced in as real a dimension as time or space, and that given the basic lifeless conditions (and those aren't delicately arranged, at least not as delicately as you've asserted above), life expresses easily. Now, if you want to limit this to intelligant life, well, that is a completely different line of reasoning.]