The Earth Is The Perfect Distance From The Sun And Moon?

[cogitoergosum]

I just deconverted on April 11, and in the space of the few days since then, I've gone from becoming a deist out of residual fear/hope, to being an atheist. However, there's a huge learning curve for me in unlearning all the psuedoscience crap I've been taught my whole life and there's a few YEC arguments which still confuse me.

 

I was always taught that the earth is the mathematically perfect distance from the sun; if it were any closer it would burn, any farther it would freeze. Also that the moon is the perfect distance; any closer and the tides would flood the earth.

 

Can anyone explain this to me and how either the above claim is not true or conversely how it could result from, to cite a YECism, "Random chance"?

[Ouroboros]

The distance for Earth to the Sun varies with about 3-5% (IIRC), and I think it's about the same for the Moon. It's not like we're at a fixed distance. But with that being said, yes, if we were to be much closer than our closest, we'd be in trouble, and if we'd be much far away, the same thing. But I suspect there are more fudge-factor than the religious "absolutists" want it to be.

 

The thing is with life as such, when it evolves, it evolves in the environment it is in. There are some evidence that there are live bacteria in very hot places on our planet, i.e. life can arise in different circumstances than our current one.

 

The problem is, if our planet had been closer to the Sun, and we had evolved in those conditions, we'd be sitting here judging our existence based on "the perfect distance from the Sun," even though it would be hotter than our current real conditions.

 

Does that make sense? Basically, we're judging our current condition as the "perfect" one and only possible solution only because we can't compare to another different condition, and because of that ignorance, people tend to draw religious conclusions.

[MeaMaximaCulpa]

All I can say is that, given the untold BILLIONS of galaxies in the universe, and the fact that each galaxy contains BILLIONS of solar systems, the chances of at least a few planets being a suitable distance from their star to support life are pretty darn high.

[JohnK]

I just deconverted on April 11, and in the space of the few days since then, I've gone from becoming a deist out of residual fear/hope, to being an atheist. However, there's a huge learning curve for me in unlearning all the psuedoscience crap I've been taught my whole life and there's a few YEC arguments which still confuse me.

 

I was always taught that the earth is the mathematically perfect distance from the sun; if it were any closer it would burn, any farther it would freeze. Also that the moon is the perfect distance; any closer and the tides would flood the earth.

 

Can anyone explain this to me and how either the above claim is not true or conversely how it could result from, to cite a YECism, "Random chance"?

 

Ouroboros already said it: because we already evolved in this environment, any changes (earth getting closer or farther from the sun) may prove fatal, at least to us humans. But again, that does not necessarily mean some kind of life still couldn't exist here, should that happen.

 

Also, if there really is some omnipotent god out there, couldn't this god have made "life" any way he/she/it wanted, able to survive regardless of circumstance or conditions, and without the earth having to be in some particular "zone of life" with respect to the sun? The whole argument is rather silly.

[Dagan]

I have glasses that sit the perfect distance from my face to correct my vision. Isn't that amazing that God designed the bridge of my nose to perfectly hold glasses at just the right distance so I could see properly?

 

We work with what we have. So does evolution. It might look perfect to us, but it's because we've changed to suit the conditions, not because the conditions have been changed to suit us.

[cogitoergosum]

Thanks everyone, makes PERFECT sense now. Basically a) if the sun had been closer, any life which may/could have evolved would have evolved to suit that hot environment if the sun does move closer/the earth farther away, either life will evolve based on that, or there will be a mass extinction, and then different forms of life may possibly evolve to suit the new environment.

 

Specific life evolves to adapt to the ENVIRONMENT, the environment is not created to support specific forms of life.

 

It all seems so simple now...

[skepticalme]

Its worth pointing out that the range in which liquid water can persist is fairly wide and distance from the sun isn't the only factor. If Mars had a thicker atmosphere it would be warm enough for liquid water and it is on average 50% farther from the sun than the Earth. If Venus had an much thinner atmosphere it would be cool enough for liquid water and it is about 30% closer to the sun. I should also point out that the sun isn't the only source of heat. Europa has twice as much liquid water as the Earth and it is heated mostly through the tidal forces of Jupiter.

 

The moon is NOT the perfect distance from the Earth. Its distance has varied greatly. It is believed that the moon was formed by the impact of a massive body with the Earth. If this is true then the moon would have accreted about 30,000km from the Earth and has since receeded to its current orbit of 384,000km. It was once 13 times closer.

[Ouroboros]

Specific life evolves to adapt to the ENVIRONMENT, the environment is not created to support specific forms of life.

 

It all seems so simple now...

That's right.

 

The only thing we have to compare to is ... us, this, what we have.

 

So basically we're picking up this curious thing, this planet, and compare it to this--the same--planet, and conclude "wow, we must be unique, and it must be that all things worked perfectly to our favor, and no other similar thing could exist."

 

It's like looking at the first computer when it was made and conclude that no other design of computer was possible.

 

It's like the argument for God's existence based on the "perfect universe." They claim that if any constant was off in the universe (interestingly enough it would include the speed of light), everything would collapse, which means that someone "fine tuned" the whole universe to exist. The problem is, how the hell can we know that for sure? What other universe have we compared to that collapsed?

 

But even more interesting is that some young Earth creationists argue (to defend the age and distance of the stars) that the speed of light was much faster in the past. Well, then we must accept from their mouth the possibility of alternating constants, without a collapsing universe.

 

And even worse, if this "fine tuned" universe is the only kind of universe that can be, then what kind of universe does Heaven and Hell exist in? Or the spirit world? Are they the same, but just some kind of sci-fi phase-shifted thing?

 

They want to eat the cake, and have it too, in every aspect of reasoning.

[Guest Marty]

The moon is NOT the perfect distance from the Earth. Its distance has varied greatly. It is believed that the moon was formed by the impact of a massive body with the Earth. If this is true then the moon would have accreted about 30,000km from the Earth and has since receeded to its current orbit of 384,000km. It was once 13 times closer.

 

IIRC, the moon gets about an inch farther from us every year. When I was born it was almost 3 feet closer than it is now...(I'm 33 April 24th)

[Vigile]

Everyone has already provided some really good, detailed answers. Another way of thinking about this, and a much simpler one is saying "wow, that hole in the ground is a perfect fit for that puddle."

[mwc]

To expand on what Vigil said. This from Douglas Adams:

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

 

I like the puddle story because it's nice and concise. He does have another, longer, story:

Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point of view on an awful lot of things, but let's try and see where our point of view comes from. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he's begun to take a little charge of; he's begun to be a tool-maker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he's made and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes in his environment. To give an example of the way man operates compared to other animals, consider speciation, which, as we know, tends to occur when a small group of animals gets separated from the rest of the herd by some geological upheaval, population pressure, food shortage or whatever and finds itself in a new environment with maybe something different going on. Take a very simple example; maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is rather colder. We know that in a few generations those genes which favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore and we'll come and we'll find that the animals have now got thicker coats. Early man, who's a tool maker, doesn't have to do this: he can inhabit an extraordinarily wide range of habitats on earth, from tundra to the Gobi Desert - he even manages to live in New York for heaven's sake - and the reason is that when he arrives in a new environment he doesn't have to wait for several generations; if he arrives in a colder environment and sees an animal that has those genes which favour a thicker coat, he says �I'll have it off him�. Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day's tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in - mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can't get you; in front of him there's the forest - it's got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by, which is full of water - water's delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here's cousin Ug and he's caught a mammoth - mammoth's are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it's fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, 'well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in' and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says 'So who made this then?' Who made this? - you can see why it's a treacherous question. Early man thinks, 'Well, because there's only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he's probably male'. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , 'If he made it, what did he make it for?' Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, 'This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely' and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

mwc

[Overcame Faith]

There is life on earth because, among other reasons, the earth is at a distance from the sun so the sun provides sufficient heat and energy on earth to have sustained life, but not so much that life was not possible. It is not the other way around. That is, the earth is not the distance from the sun so there would be life on earth. Our distance from the sun was happenstance.

 

As for the moon, someone has already pointed out that the moon's orgit around the earth is constantly changing. When the moon first came into existance, it was very close to the earth and would have appeared much larger in the sky than it does now. What is more, when it was that close, it wreaked the kind of havock that you described. It just so happens that at this particular point in the history of the moon, it is at the distance it is so that the tides, etc., are the way they are. One day, the moon will slip completely away from the earth's gravitational pull and that will be catastrophic to life on earth.

[florduh]

My right hand is just the right distance from my, uh, never mind. Anyway, it's a miracle!!!!

[Vixentrox]

The moon is NOT the perfect distance from the Earth. Its distance has varied greatly. It is believed that the moon was formed by the impact of a massive body with the Earth. If this is true then the moon would have accreted about 30,000km from the Earth and has since receeded to its current orbit of 384,000km. It was once 13 times closer.

 

IIRC, the moon gets about an inch farther from us every year. When I was born it was almost 3 feet closer than it is now...(I'm 33 April 24th)

It's something like that. They bounce a laser off of it or something to measure the change.

[skepticalme]

One day, the moon will slip completely away from the earth's gravitational pull and that will be catastrophic to life on earth.

 

Actually, that is false. The moon is moving into tidal lock with the Earth. What is happenig is that the tidal force from the moon causes a bulge on the surface of the Earth, this causes the tides. However, the Earth rotates with a shorter period than the moons orbit. As a result the bulge is not directly underneath the moon but is slightly in advanced of it in the direction of the Earth's rotation. This causes a drag on the Earth's surface that slows its rotation, the days are getting longer by a few nanoseconds every year. In addition to the moon causing this tidal bulge on the Earth, the Earth's bulge exerts a tidal effect on the moon. Since the bulge is in advance of the moon, due to the Earth's rotation, angular momentum from the Earth's rotation is transfered to the moon in the form or orbital energy. This results in the moon moving about 1.5 inches a year away from the Earth. The moon will never leave Earth orbit but it will move into a higher and higher one until the period of the Earth's rotation and the period of the moon's orbit are equal. At that point the Earth and moon will always have the same sides facing each other. This is called tidal lock. This has already happened to the moon's surface because it has a much smaller mass, one side always faces the Earth. But the sun will have become a red giant before tidal lock is achieved and there will be no more Earth and moon.

[Overcame Faith]

Very interesting and thanks for the correction. I was basing my statement that the moon would eventually slip away from the earth's gravitational field from a show I saw on History Channel. Your explanation sounds more reasonable (and interesting).

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

The distance for Earth to the Sun varies with about 3-5% (IIRC), and I think it's about the same for the Moon. It's not like we're at a fixed distance. But with that being said, yes, if we were to be much closer than our closest, we'd be in trouble, and if we'd be much far away, the same thing. But I suspect there are more fudge-factor than the religious "absolutists" want it to be.

Well not necessarily, both Mars and Venus are in the habitable zone. Both probably had liquid water at one point on their surface and both have an atmosphere and things that would've been there that would've made life possible. It was volcanism on Venus that caused it to get the runaway greenhouse effect and boil over. And on Mars, well the insides of the planet cooled in a way that will eventually happen to earth, so the planet now inactive, has frozen oceans and its not clear than any life has survived.

 

Though yeah it's a small habitable zone, but compared to it, our planets are tiny, so 3 of them fit well inside. Though other habitable zones may exist on the moons of the gas giants as well, let's not forget that.

 

All I am saying is that the YEC and other creationists grossly exaggerate how small the habitable zone is, and how many planets can fit in it, and cherrypick what astronomers say with regards to it to make it seem like the odds of a planet in the habitable zone are slim to none.

 

The reality is, there are probably solar systems with more planets in the habitable zone. And at one point in our solar system, there were. But Earth and Venus crashed into most of them. And some of the debris from them created our moon.

[REBOOT]

Under YEC law life is not resilient and the conditions for it need to conform to precise rules. Since the bible serves as the ultimate reference, modern science needs to be set aside

 

Truth is... Life is extremely resilient and opportunistic.

[Thackerie]

The distance for Earth to the Sun varies with about 3-5% (IIRC), and I think it's about the same for the Moon. It's not like we're at a fixed distance. But with that being said, yes, if we were to be much closer than our closest, we'd be in trouble, and if we'd be much far away, the same thing. But I suspect there are more fudge-factor than the religious "absolutists" want it to be.

Well not necessarily, both Mars and Venus are in the habitable zone. Both probably had liquid water at one point on their surface and both have an atmosphere and things that would've been there that would've made life possible. It was volcanism on Venus that caused it to get the runaway greenhouse effect and boil over. And on Mars, well the insides of the planet cooled in a way that will eventually happen to earth, so the planet now inactive, has frozen oceans and its not clear than any life has survived.

 

Though yeah it's a small habitable zone, but compared to it, our planets are tiny, so 3 of them fit well inside. Though other habitable zones may exist on the moons of the gas giants as well, let's not forget that.

 

All I am saying is that the YEC and other creationists grossly exaggerate how small the habitable zone is, and how many planets can fit in it, and cherrypick what astronomers say with regards to it to make it seem like the odds of a planet in the habitable zone are slim to none.

 

The reality is, there are probably solar systems with more planets in the habitable zone. And at one point in our solar system, there were. But Earth and Venus crashed into most of them. And some of the debris from them created our moon.

 

A few days ago, I read in another forum (Happy Atheist, I think) about the "Goldilocks (habitable) zone". Someone said that there was enough room in this zone for two Earth-like planets supporting the same kind of life and conditions we have on this planet. Then someone else said that if that had happened, "We could kick their asses and steal their stuff." When it was pointed out that THEY could also kick our asses and steal our stuff, there was unanimous agreement that things had worked out for the best after all.

[Thackerie]

All I can say is that, given the untold BILLIONS of galaxies in the universe, and the fact that each galaxy contains BILLIONS of solar systems, the chances of at least a few planets being a suitable distance from their star to support life are pretty darn high.

 

True, that. Of course, the life that evolves on other planets and moon wouldn't necessarily be the exact same as the lifeforms on Earth. I wonder if there are some religious fundies in other solar systems who think their god put them on the ONE and only place in the universe perfectly capable of supporting life.

[3DollarBill]

Ironically, when the moon first formed it was a hell of a lot closer, and ocean tides were on the order of THOUSANDS of feet. Yes, water rushed inland for miles and miles and then back out on a daily basis. It was this constant mixing and churning which facilitated abiogenesis. At least that's one theory.

 

Yeah, a lot of factors seem to line up just perfectly which allowed us to be here. If that weren't the case we wouldn't be around talking about it. There are about 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the observable universe. You can bet your ass a few of them are going to have just the right configuration of planets and moons. Intelligent life may be exceedingly rare but even if it is...with the size and scope of the universe anything that is remotely possible is practically inevitable.

[jblueep]

[Guest wester]

You need to wrap your head around the size of the universe. Words like big, huge and gigantic are gross understatements.

 

Our Milky way contains 200-400 billion stars (we don't know exactly because we can't see them all)

and there are ~200 billion observable galaxies (who the hell knows what more is beyond what can be seen with visible light)

Do the multiplication here and your calculator will probably blow up or your head will explode.

 

Here are two videos simulating a trip to the center of the Virgo cluster of galaxies.

This is just a small section of our "corner" of the universe:

 

http://www.facebook.com/v/10150909208333107

 

http://www.facebook.com/v/10150909205138107

 

Cheers

[3DollarBill]

 

*Sticks fingers in ears* lalalalalalalalalalalala

LMFAO

 

I'll just post whatever the fuck i want and dont you dare correct me PRAZE JEEEEEBUS!!!!!!!

 

 

OTOH...look at the number of "likes" each post got and maybe there is hope for humanity after all...

[mcdaddy]

J, that is so much WIN.