Welcome to the madhouse, "Servant",
I've corrected some spelling and grammar in quoted extracts to be a bit more readable. Don't take offence at this, I don't mean it as an insult.
Servent of the Cross writes:
Like if earth was just a few feet closer to the sun we would get too hot and not be able to survive and if we were any further we would be too cold.....
Actually, the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is not a perfect circle, and the distance to the Sun already varies by about five million kilometres every year. See
this link. Note that this makes almost no difference to seasonal temperatures, which depend on the angle we are to the Sun in different hemispheres. Long term global temperatures have a strong dependence on the how light and heat is reflected and absorbed and retained, and this can vary considerably over long time periods for a number of reasons. Distance from the Sun does not have as much effect as you think.
There is a
habitable zone for distance from the Sun within which life as we know it could plausibly exist, but it is many millions of miles wide; not a few feet. The habitable zone is considered to extend almost as far inwards as Venus, and then out beyond Mars. The cause of extreme temperatures on Venus and Mars is not simply distance, but also the ability of the atmosphere to retain heat. The question is addressed in the
Ask the Space Scientist archive; he suggests that the habitable zone is roughly in the range 80 to 200 million miles from the Sun. This is only an estimate, but broadly similar to estimates by other authorities.
Tell me: how does an explosion do that? All the explosions I have seen in my life create havoc and that's it. Also here is some more proof for my case
Our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate. It is occurring fast enough that, as little as 50,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. In far less time in the past (25,000 years or so), all life on earth would have ceased to exist.
This also is untrue. The size of the Sun does not change steadily, but oscillates slightly over time spans of about eighty years. Long term rates of change are nowhere near what you suggest. If anything, the Sun may even be expanding very slightly over the last few decades, but it is hard to measure since the Sun does not have a well defined boundary.
A good discussion of this matter is available at
The Legend of the Shrinking Sun, by Christian astronomer Howard Van Till.
Because of solar and lunar gravitational drag forces, the spin of the earth (now about 1,000 mph [1,609 kmph]) is gradually slowing down. If our world was billions of years old, it would already have stopped turning. Or, calculating differently, a billion years ago our planet would have been spinning so fastit would have become a pancake. So, either way, our earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old.
This is another common error. The spin of the Earth is indeed slowing due to tidal interactions with the Moon. As a result, the length of the day is increasing by about 1.5 milliseconds every century. In a billion years, this adds up to about four hours. That is, a billion years ago the rotation would be roughly 20% faster, and a day would be about 20 hours long. This assumes a uniform rate of change, which is not valid. The rate of slowing varies over time, depending mainly on the shape of oceans and continents. Even so, the estimate is not bad, and is fairly close to independent fossil evidence from corals, which imply that 370 million years ago the day was about 22 hours long.
Here is another Question for you, if there was a big explosion then why did all the planets stop in our galaxy and they are so evenly spaces. How is this possible?
Planet formation has nothing to do with the explosion of the big bang. Planets are not evenly spaced at all; as you move out from the Sun the separation distance increases dramatically. Planets did not stop in the galaxy. Galaxies are far older than the solar system. Our solar system condensed from a nebula within the galaxy something like 5 billion years ago.
You are in an awkward position, "Servant". People you trust have been telling you things that are just not true. You won't be able to sort it all out for yourself immediately; but do make the effort to check out some of the details of these claims.
The conclusion of the
article by Howard van Till that I cited above is worth thinking about. (I have abbreviated as indicated; follow the link for the whole thing.)
... what began as a puzzling report within the professional scientific community was transformed by the "creation-science" community into "scientific evidence" purporting to substantiate the recent creation scenario. We have seen how the shrinking sun report [...] lost contact with the critical evaluation and continuing investigation [...]. And, having lost this vital connection, the solar shrinkage report became the "legend of the shrinking sun" - the vehicle of misinformation and unwarranted conclusions.
It is unfortunate that many readers of "creation-science" literature have been misinformed concerning such matters as the sun's history. To be misinformed, even by well meaning fellow Christians, is a regrettable experience.
Of far greater concern to me, however, is the negative effect that these episodes of misinformation may have on the Christian witness to a scientifically knowledgeable world. The world to which we direct the Christian message has every right to expect our scholarship, including our natural science, to be characterized by the highest standards of competence and integrity. If we publicly fail to maintain those standards, how can that world gain confidence in the message we proclaim? If we disseminate misinformation in the name of Christian scholarship, who will listen to our preaching of the gospel?
The errors you are making here are obviously not your own errors. You are repeating factually incorrect material from others. Your screen name suggests you are a Christian; it will help to remember that claims about habitable zones and rates of change and so on are not from the bible or the church. Showing them to be nonsense is not a criticism of your religion.
Bear in mind that some things get very complicated. For example, although the Big Bang is often described as an explosion, this is very misleading. It is nothing like the kind of explosions you are used to in which matter bursts out from some central point. It is about an expansion of space itself, which is a very different thing; and really hard to understand.
Good luck -- Sylas
™ Version 4.2