How do we know when our interpretation is wrong?

[T_aquaticus]

@PDPrice

See:
Refuting absolute geocentrism

Just skimming through the article gave me irony overload.

There is another, perhaps stronger, point to make: geokinetics is the best way to understand the physics. The equations of motion are the simplest for the particles that orbit in a center-of-mass system and when the center is used as the origin in the co-ordinate frame. Science thrives on making predictions, and Newton’s three Laws of Motion and theory of gravity (with Einstein’s further refinements) are one of the most amazing predictive engines in history. Since Scripture doesn’t demand that a stationary earth is the only valid reference frame (absolute geocentrism), why would we hold to an earth-centered, earth-fixed reference frame?

The very same thing could be said of evolution and old earth geology. There are absolutely amazing predictions that the theory of evolution makes, such as predicting the pattern of differences between the human and chimp genomes:

Mutations Are Consistent With Biochemistry

In a previous thread I discussed what science meant by random mutations and how this term is defined by experimental results and statistics. A lot of this work was done in the 1940’s and 50’s, and since then many new facts have been discovered in the field of genetics, such as the discovery of DNA. This gave rise to the field of molecular biology and allowed us to understand biology at the molecular scale. So what exactly causes mutations? We once again have to reiterate the the limited scope of science. What science can do is put forward hypotheses and see if the evidence is consistent with that hypothesis. What science can not do is make ontological statements about absolute truth. With that in mind, the next few posts will discuss the evidence that links mutagenesis (the production of mutations) with the biochemistry of the cell and why scientists aren’t simply assuming that mutations are caused by biochemistry.

In geology, we can predict the ratio of 238U/206Pb in zircons by measuring the ratio of 235U/207Pb. The ratios won’t be the same, by the way. Instead, we can use the observed and measured decay constant for each U isotope to make those predictions. If those decay chains acting at those rates did not produce those ratios, then how are we able to so accurately predict what those ratios will be?