[creation] Re: Precipitation

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:58:46 -0800 (PST)

In Ch1 Part 2 of Dodwell?s work he shows the Ecliptic having disturbed from its 
original position and back to it start potion . He admits he is assuming the 
start point. Dodwel states that the recovery is "partial" recovery to ~1850 and 
states what he thinks is the "probable" starting point because it is not known 
if the original & final ecliptics were any different. However if the recovery 
of a table top gyroscope is completed its recovery. That is to say no longer 
trying to recover then is probable that it has recovered to tits original 
position. Ironically these observations demonstrate that the movement would 
have to be attributed to the Heavens and not the earth, because a table top 
gyroscopic motion is impossible in a-centric cosmology. It does however makes 
perfect sense & only in Geocentric / Static cosmology


Philip Stott <pstott@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Neville,

I don't see how Dodwell's work gives the same ecliptic before and after. I
do see how his curve can converge onto Newcome's curve, but that is not the
same thing.

The earth is "hanging on nothing". As far as I can make out it is at the
centre of the firmament, space, the aether - which has a fundamental 24 hour
rotation period (day defined before the sun makes it observable to a limited
range of senses). It could be reaction with the firmament which keeps the
earth stable. The ecliptic seems to depend on some kind of rocking of the
earth relative to the firmament. This is changing and has changed in the
past. It appears to have changed from very little to twenty odd degrees in
two thousand and some years. To know whether it is the entire firmament
which is rocking or the earth rocking in the firmament (or a combination) we
could only know if the Scriptures told us. I see the scriptures clearly deny
a daily rotation and a circuit around anything. Most things "hanging" are
subject to small oscillations on occasions, so I am not sure that we can
rule out minor oscillations for the earth.

As for the fact that plants are designed for seasons. How much of that could
be due to adaptation? Plants, even more than animals, have astounding
ability to adapt to changed conditions. The range of possible variation
designed into plants and animals in the beginning was probably greater than
remains today, mutations having almost certainly damaged many possibilities.
This astounding versatility in the living world allowed the theory of
evolution to confuse many intelligent observers.



----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Neville Jones 
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 11:16 AM
Subject: [creation] Re: Precipitation

> 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
> I tend to favour the pumping action for water returning to the heads of
> Yours in Christ,
> Neville.

Other related posts: