More on Science and Inerrancy

I wanted to briefly call attention to Steve Hays’ article over at Triablogue, responding to a conversation going on in the Peter Enns/inerrancy thread here at Greenbaggins.

I didn’t have much to add, except to comment on the old yarn about the “sun standing still” in Joshua.  As an aerospace engineer, I can attest that there is nothing inaccurate about a statement like that if you take the observer’s location on earth to be your non-inertial reference frame.  Newtonian physics still works just fine, you just have to add in Coriolis and centrifugal forces to account for the fact that your reference frame is not inertial (ie. the earth rotates).  So what is the objection from biblical errantists?  That it is an “error” for the Book of Joshua to speak in terms of a particular non-inertial reference frame?

-Posted by David Gadbois

About these ads

2 Comments

  1. April 10, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    “… you just have to add in Coriolis and centrifugal forces to account for the fact that your reference frame is not inertial.”

    Well, obviously, but where do we get the plutonium to generate the 1.21 gigiwatts needed to power the flux capacitor?

  2. April 11, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    OK, guys. I deleted, and will be deleting anything not having to do with the substance of the post.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 345 other followers

%d bloggers like this: