This seems to rely on the assumption that the universe is contained by time, rather than it containing time, per relativity theory. If so, then yes, the universe is a thing that didn't exist before, and somehow came to be after a countdown reaches zero from a finite or infinitely distant prior moment.
Relativity theory says time is just one of 4 dimensions of spacetime, part of the universe, rather than the universe being a temporary object contained by time.
This seems to suggest that time itself was created at some moment, and that at prior times, time didn't exist. That seems pretty self contradictory.
Depends on how close to Earth-like you want. A rocky planet in the habital zone? Plenty of those. One with an atmosphere we can breathe? No evidence of anything like that.
As for if Earth was first among the nearby planets, that seems absurd. There are plenty of older star systems.
As for Earth being prior to really distant Earth-like places, per relativity of simultaneity, which one came first is a matter of the convention you choose to compare ages.
You talk about defects in time, but give no clue as to what you might mean by that.
No. Space is up, a direction perpendicular to north. The analogy is apt. There is no north of the pole, nor is there 'down' beyond about 6500 km. These are examples of dimensions that are bounded by the coordinate system, exactly the way time is bounded at the big bang by a cosmic coordinate system.
This seems to suggest some sort of cyclic model, but they've had great trouble finding one that matches empirical evidence