Extreme Planetary Features vs realism

[Trollface13]

i can list several possible planets that can ocurr naturally in our universe
-Jungle
-Desert
-Ice
-Ocean
-Volcano
-Terran
-Water Vapor Gas Giant
-Diamond

For Jungle & Terran is our own earth as i stated before in the eocene the earth was covered in vast jungles but now its a multiclimate aka Terran.
For diamond if a carbon planet is in eccentric orbit of a sun it can crystalize into a diamond planet after millions of years due to the process of heating and cooling and geological & gravitational friction.
For ice..... well you know what europa is its an ice ball orbiting jupiter plus earth was in a global ice age billions of years ago called "snowball earth"
For volcano we have jupiters Io it is the most volcanically active planet in the solar system.
As for desert.... Mars takes the cake.
Ocean planets are mainly extrasolar superearths. though someday we may find a weird oceanic island planet.
Water Vapor Gas giants now this one fascinated me because these two extrasolar planets are the only evidence that these exist and could harbor floating giant aliens. HAT-P-11b & HD 209458 b both are gas giants containing the 4 key elements for life.

[xpian]

"well if earth had no moon the orbit would destabilize and all tides would seize"
No, the sun also influences tides. Tides would be smaller. I have no idea what "the orbit would destabilize" means.

"the weather stops"
No, weather is generated by Earth's own processes, owing to things like land, sea, and air being warmed by the sun and the planet itself rotating.

"then tectonics stop"
No, plate tectonics on earth have very little to do with the moon. The heat within the Earth, either left over from the planet's formation or generated by decaying radioactive elements, keeps much of the material of the planet below the crust in either liquid or plastic form, allowing huge chunks of solid material called cratons (the building blocks making up the continents) to move about, crashing into each other.

"te carbon cycles stop"
The moon has nothing to do with the carbon cycles of life on Earth.

"lack of a moon also gives lack of a magnetic field irradiating the planet killing almost all life on the surface."
Earth's magnetic field has nothing to do with the moon. Most scientists agree that our magnetic field is generated by the great dynamo at the heart of our planet, the spinning metallic core. Mars, by contrast, seems to have lost most of its magnetic field and the conjecture is that the red planet has cooled off and slowed enough that its core is no longer able to generate one.

"if earth had 2 moons however..."
Some of your predictions are more likely than others, but at least you do point out that the mass of the additional moon is important. To that, however, I'll point out that even a quite massive moon wouldn't necessarily "rip the earth apart". A big moon could fall into a tidally-locked orbit with its planet, one not rotating with relation to the other, both just gently circling for a very long time.

"Hot House Age"
True. Earth has been completely ice-free several times that we know of, when global temperatures and sea levels were both much higher. Also, we've had a "snowball earth" at least twice that we know of, when a runaway albedo effect caused a global ice-age all the way to the equator. If an alien had visited earth in those days, the planet would have looked like Hoth.

[xpian]

"because pandora has similar mass to venus. meaning less gravity."
Venus is Earth's sister world, just a little smaller in size and mass. Surface gravity there is about 91% of what it is on Earth. And we don't really have any good data as to how living things that evolved in 1G would react and grow in 0.9G. Maybe they'd get really tall--maybe not. Maybe it would take countless generations of evolution for organisms to adapt to permanently lower gravity.

[Chick]

Everything xpian said, I second. Trollface, you really need to do some reading on scientific websites about some of your ideas. They really make little sense.

Xpian, the idea of the Earth's orbit destabilizing without the Moon is a misunderstanding of the correct idea that the axial tilt of the Earth would likely be more variable (NOT the orbit), without the stabilizing gravity of the Moon. The Earth's orbit is not significantly affected by the presence of the Moon, since the Moon is in the same solar orbit as the Earth.

[xpian]

"Xpian, the idea of the Earth's orbit destabilizing without the Moon is a misunderstanding of the correct idea that the axial tilt of the Earth would likely be more variable (NOT the orbit), without the stabilizing gravity of the Moon."

Ah, yes. Now I see what he was going for. I have heard that idea as well.

[Azélor]

If the technology is advanced enough, they might not need the natural ecosystem. Everything the nature does could be made by man or machine but at a great cost.
That depends what you mean by killing itself.