[creation] Re: Precipitation
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:57:05 -0800 (PST)
The Ecliptic would have been identical to what it is now according to Dodwell
and others. I Haven?t spoken to Bowden or others about this but the research is
inescapably valid. However the change in ecliptic was due to the Axis of the
heavens not the axis of the earth. That doesn?t invalidate or otherwise affect
the validity of the Change in Ecliptic. So If the Ecliptic were originally the
same before the disturbance as the observations show, how would a "temporary"
disturbance affect the climate? Would it irretrievably upset a delicate balance
that would no longer be able to fully recuperate to its former self? As for the
date we can know for a fact purely from scripture the flood took place in the
year 2495-2494BC with a total margin of error of +16 years exactly. Dodwell?s/
Dryson curve shows that the change in ecliptic started about 2345BC but I am
not sure of their margin of error. It is obvious that impacts took place after
the flood because the scars are still visible
and
would otherwise have been washed entirely away. This is why I found Walt
Browns model so interesting. However the change in ecliptic took place as
observed, but it was not the earth that moved. This can be easily understood in
terms of a mogul over a baby?s crib. The Heavens are attached to the earth not
the other way around, that is "pivotal" to a geo-static cosmos.
Allen
Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Philip,
What I find difficult with the heavy dew idea is that the climate was so vastly
improved before the Flood that we did not need houses. Sleeping outside with
heavy dew at night/morning would have been most uncomfortable, and would have
led to serious illnesses.
As I have said to Malcolm Bowden, George Dodwell's idea of the "axis" of the
World being knocked off true is clearly wrong, since the World "cannot be
moved." Also, there is no doubt that plants and animals are geared around a
four-season cycle, particularly so with flowers, trees and crops. They were
designed that way. So I do not accept that the ecliptic was originally
equatorial.
I tend to favour the pumping action for water returning to the heads of rivers.
Yours in Christ,
Neville.
Philip Stott
wrote:
Dear Neville
Much evidence - primarily from George Dodwell - points to a major shift in
the inclination of the earth - probably at the time of the flood. I suspect
that the ecliptic was pretty well over the equator pre-flood. [The moon
would then have an equatorial orbit, as most satellites to their planets.]
The wind patterns would have been entirely different and I suspect seasons
would be almost absent. Not only high water vapour content but probably at
least double the mass of the atmosphere would change the "blanketing" effect
and lead to a more constant temperature regime.
Returning to the question of how the water returned to the source of the
rivers. I wonder if they did. When the fountains of the great deep were
broken up the water emerging presumably came from reservoirs underground
much as in the Walter Brown model. Could the original rivers have been fed
from a similar (shallower?) source? [Ps.24, 2 Peter 3:5]. I would imagine a
small source - somewhat like the river in Ezekiel 47 rapidly becoming bigger
away from the source. Perhaps fed along the way by nightly heavy dew
dripping copiously from the trees. I have heard the idea of
gravitational/centrifugal pumping being a possibility (particularly with a
zero or small axis inclination) but remain somewhat skeptical about that.
That particular theory has trilobites inhabiting the waterways used in
returning water to the river sources.
Blessings
Philip Stott
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
