>Hi Mark,
> Can you comment on the following? Just curious, TIA, Steven Bennett
>
>

Steve,

Here's another..

The sun loses approximately five (5) miles a day in size. I don't know if that's radius or diameter so let's go conservative and pick diameter. That means 2.5 miles per day in size of loss with respect to its (the Sun) relation to us (the Earth).

Now, how old are people these days saying that the Earth is? 1 billion years, 4 billion? 7 billion? 12 billion?

Let's pick a measly 3 billion years.

The Earth is approximately 93,000,000 miles from the Sun. By that I'm presuming the outer "skin" if that's the correct kind of thought. Pretty hot though! Now, that depends on a fairly consistent rate of "burn" and from all the observations I've seen in the Universe that's the case. Winding down a bit but VERY CONSISTENT, or at least (allegedly) measured in millions and billions of years - enough for this example.

Soo.. We take 2.5 miles, multiple it by 3,000,000,000 * 356.25 (that would be years of days) and we get 2,739,375,000,000 miles.

Subtract that 93 millon miles and the Earth is some 2,739,282,000,000 INSIDE the outer crust of the Sun.

Goodness, just a few degrees (3/4) average and the whole climate of the Earth changes.

I'd say that it's a pretty remarkeble thing that the Earth survived all those years inside the Sun and was able to retain water and anything else non-charcoal. *g* Seriously nothing would have remained. That would alternatively then require some pretty spontaneous and cataclysmic VERY RECENT geological event.

Where's that evidence?

But, on the other hand, the longer you go, well, the well more done you are. *g*

Has anyone you know ever addressed this little .er.. problem? *g*

The shorter the time frame needed to avoid the heat problem cuts pretty deeply into the alleged time needed for the spontaneous generation of life, let alone chemical reactions. Two different animals (pun intended *g*) I'd think.

Usually about now someone starts getting visibly irrational. *bg*

Best,

DD