Evolution's “Molecular Clock”: Not So Dependable After All?

PLOS (Public Library of Science) ^ | 8/17/04 | Staff

[delapaz]

I agree with most of your post, I just didnt agree with your assertion in post 2. I'll stop now before we go too OT.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Doesn't that make "clock" a meaningless term."

No---all that means is that the "error" in the "clock" is better defined.

[TomEwall]

What are the specific properties of this implied "God"?

The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Have you ever (in your 30 years experience) created anything useful by randomly mixing chemicals?"

1) I don't "randomly mix" chemicals 2) neither does "Mother Nature".

[balrog666]

You may believe in elves, if you so wish, but if you choose to believe that streetlights are elves, then you're unreasonable.

And if you expect them to talk back, you're definitely but one step ahead of the men in the white coats.

[balrog666]

The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.

Is this the same god who orders babies put to the sword and virgins raped?

[D Edmund Joaquin]

I really like your new tagline MrBalrog sir, and do you want to know why?

[Dimensio]

The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.

Okay. How have you derived knowledge of these properties?

[Dimensio]

I really like your new tagline MrBalrog sir, and do you want to know why?

Is it because you can use it as an excuse to reply to him without addressing, in any way at all, the content of his post?

[orionblamblam]

> I just didnt agree with your assertion in post 2

Post 2 wasn't mine. It was, in fact, yours. I'll step back now and watch you debate yourself.

[orionblamblam]

You didn't quantify anything.

[TomEwall]

What may be known about God is plain to men, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen.

[Right Wing Professor]

but some INTELLiGENCE was used to determine that the new stuff was, indeed, 'useful'

Moving the goalposts, a Creationist Classic (TM).

You originally wrote Have you ever (in your 30 years experience) created anything useful by randomly mixing chemicals?

The answer is, he might not have, but many chemists have.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

I have never talked to elves. He is broadcasting his view of theology, that's why I like it so.

[Ichneumon]

[Why don't you leave science to people who know something about it?]
Only if YOU.. "..leave GOD to people who know something about HIM!"

Works for me. What would you like to know?

[nuconvert]

here ya go, Pong

[TomEwall]

No, but it's the same God who gave His Son that you might have eternal life.

[Dataman]

"Science" continues to self-contradict with further information

You got that right.

[TomEwall]

I wasn't asked to. The poster asked for specific properties of God, and that is what came to mind.

[Ichneumon]

[Why don't you leave science to people who know something about it?]
Like Reiner Protsch von Zieten?

Although he is apparently a goof-off and a fraud, I have no doubt that he could summarize these articles and their implications more accurately than you have.