Skip to comments.
Evolution's “Molecular Clock”: Not So Dependable After All?
PLOS (Public Library of Science) ^
| 8/17/04
| Staff
Posted on 08/25/2004 10:14:24 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 341-352 next last
To: delapaz
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.
81
posted on
08/25/2004 12:52:13 PM PDT
by
Dataman
To: 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.
Your answer is just more question-begging.
82
posted on
08/25/2004 12:53:31 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
To: longshadow
83
posted on
08/25/2004 12:56:42 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(A compassionate evolutionist!)
To: Dimensio
Your answer is just more question-begging. Why?
84
posted on
08/25/2004 12:57:31 PM PDT
by
TomEwall
To: <1/1,000,000th%
Creationists don't believe in DNA. Your comment is an excellent illustration of why evos keep losing the argument.
85
posted on
08/25/2004 12:57:56 PM PDT
by
Dataman
To: Wonder Warthog
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?
86
posted on
08/25/2004 12:58:02 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
(I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
To: TomEwall
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.
87
posted on
08/25/2004 1:00:34 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
To: Dimensio
The problem is that your initial assumption is your conclusion.
A whole lot of folks don't see what's wrong with that.
88
posted on
08/25/2004 1:03:20 PM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(A compassionate evolutionist!)
To: PatrickHenry
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.
89
posted on
08/25/2004 1:10:19 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
To: Dimensio
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.
90
posted on
08/25/2004 1:11:18 PM PDT
by
TomEwall
To: Dataman
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
To: TomEwall
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.
92
posted on
08/25/2004 1:20:27 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Indeed... atheism is on the decline, and with it, Darwinism.
Which means what, exactly? Other than a false attempt to connect atheism and evolution?
93
posted on
08/25/2004 1:21:30 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
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.
To: Dimensio; Michael_Michaelangelo
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.
95
posted on
08/25/2004 1:31:20 PM PDT
by
Dataman
To: 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?
96
posted on
08/25/2004 1:34:36 PM PDT
by
TomEwall
To: orionblamblam
debating oneself only works with the assistance of hard drugs I would assume. My bad, your post #4 is what I should have said.
97
posted on
08/25/2004 1:34:52 PM PDT
by
delapaz
To: 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?
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?
98
posted on
08/25/2004 1:36:00 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
To: Dataman
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.
99
posted on
08/25/2004 1:36:42 PM PDT
by
balrog666
("One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." -- Heinlein)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
You need a picture for some people.
![](http://www.plosbiology.org/archive/1545-7885/2/8/figure/10.1371_journal.pbio.0020287.g001-M.gif)
Non-random base frequencies around microsatellites
100
posted on
08/25/2004 1:38:05 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
(I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 341-352 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson