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

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

[Dataman]

Is it unreasonable to believe in God?

An unreasonable man will always say it is unreasonable to believe in God. That's not because it actually is unreasonable to acknowledge Him, but because God doesn't fit into the unreasonable man's personal plans.

[Dimensio]

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.

Your answer is just more question-begging.

[PatrickHenry]

Reasonable placemarker.

[TomEwall]

Your answer is just more question-begging. Why?

[Dataman]

Creationists don't believe in DNA.

Your comment is an excellent illustration of why evos keep losing the argument.

[AndrewC]

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

Each species has a clock that is different. Which is the correct clock compared to the sun?

[Dimensio]

Why?

I asked how you derived the attributes of this "God". You said:

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.

That's question-begging, because you are assuming attributes of God (that it has made its attributes plain to men) and using that assumption to prove your conclusion. The problem is that your initial assumption is your conclusion.

[PatrickHenry]

The problem is that your initial assumption is your conclusion.

A whole lot of folks don't see what's wrong with that.

[Dimensio]

A whole lot of folks don't see what's wrong with that.

Your comment is an excellent illustration of why evos keep "losing" the argument in the eyes of creationists.

[TomEwall]

You asked me how I know God's attributes. I am responding that I know because He has made them plain, not just to me, but to everybody. This thought is not original to me.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Your comment is an excellent illustration of why evos keep losing the argument.

Indeed... atheism is on the decline, and with it, Darwinism.

Twilight struggle

[Dimensio]

I am responding that I know because He has made them plain, not just to me, but to everybody.

Yes, and the fact that I don't see it becomes a failing on my part. No need for you to support your claims with evidence, just assert that it's "self-evident" and then you can shift the blame to me for not seeing the "obvious".

Sorry, I'm not going to fall for those tricks. You made an unsubstantiated assumption and you applied faulty logic. My question remains unanswered.

[Dimensio]

Indeed... atheism is on the decline, and with it, Darwinism.

Which means what, exactly? Other than a false attempt to connect atheism and evolution?

[RightWingNilla]

It looks like the IDers found a new holy grail to go chasing after.

The caveats of relying on specific molecular clocks for precise sequence divergences have been known for years. The pattern of relationships are still remarkably similar between different methods overall (with the occasional outlier).

Reports like these lend no support to ID whatsoever. You guys would be better off looking for evidence of the flood.

[Dataman]

Other than a false attempt to connect atheism and evolution?

The connection is there indeed, despite your protests. Those who believe that evolution is a purely natural process are less than 12% of the population. That indicates one of two things: Either you guys have been less than persuasive despite the use of government schools, PBS and Time Life books, or there isn't any convincing evidence. Either way, it doesn't look good for the materialists.

And, speaking of materialists, that is the atheist connection, since a fundamental, though illogical, first principle of evolution is naturalism. Naturalism denies the existence of anything besides matter and its motion. Naturalism (also known as materialism) is necessarily atheistic and is the connecting point between evolution and unbelief.

It's your turn. Make the case for your point of view. Demonstrate to all of us that there is no connection between atheistic evolution and atheism.

[TomEwall]

You asked me how I know of the principles relating to God that I referenced. I told you I know them because He has made them plain. How does your question remain unanswered?

[delapaz]

debating oneself only works with the assistance of hard drugs I would assume. My bad, your post #4 is what I should have said.

[Dimensio]

You asked me how I know of the principles relating to God that I referenced. I told you I know them because He has made them plain. How does your question remain unanswered?

Simple. Your answer was nothing more than "I can just tell". That's a non-answer.

In what way has this "God" made its attributes plain?

[balrog666]

The connection is there indeed, despite your protests.

You mean, you think it's there in spite of your inability to establish it. Uh-huh, that sure carries a lot of weight.

[AndrewC]

You need a picture for some people.

Non-random base frequencies around microsatellites