[creation] Re: Precipitation

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:07:49 -0800 (PST)

As Dodwell's curve is extrapolated from the most recent data i.e. 1850 and then 
further back 1700?s 1600?s 13?00 ect he is essentially working backwards. In 
this case, I guess really 1850 would be his "start" point. Therefore his 
extrapolated curve is still valid and useful for 1. Demonstrating astronomical 
and architectural reconciliation between observations and calculation. 2. 
Logarithmic sin of a table top not free floating gyroscopic motion. The 
Universe is attached to the earth not the other way around. This curve in my 
opinion, Is one of the strongest proofs as so far as you can prove anything 
that the heavens not the earth revolve around a fixed point in this case the 
earth. This can be deduced via the following logic. The Star trails are due to 
either the spin of the earth or the spin of the universe. In a-centric 
cosmology all spinning bodies behaves as free floating gyroscopes, because 
although a body may orbit another it is still free floating. The curve shows tre
 of a table top gyroscope. No such movement can exist in a-centric cosmology 
for earth. Therefore we are only left with one other possibility. The universe 
is spinning around & attached to a fixed earth. At some point the universe?s 
spin was disturb, the curve clearly demonstrates that it behaved as a table top 
gyroscope therefore it must be the universe not the earth?s motion. Only a 
Geo-static model could demonstrate this. Personally I don?t think it an 
accident that we have ~3.5 thousand years all over the world observations, made 
by professionals. Clearly, in my opinion , God is showing us something. The 
only alternative to this is to ignore the evidence, which is what most have 


Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: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 
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: