  We have re-analyzed the stability of pulse arrival times from pulsars and
white dwarfs using several analysis tools for measuring the noise
characteristics of sampled time and frequency data. We show that the best
terrestrial artificial clocks substantially exceed the performance of
astronomical sources as time-keepers in terms of accuracy (as defined by cesium
primary frequency standards) and stability. This superiority in stability can
be directly demonstrated over time periods up to two years, where there is high
quality data for both. Beyond 2 years there is a deficiency of data for
clock/clock comparisons and both terrestrial and astronomical clocks show equal
performance being equally limited by the quality of the reference timescales
used to make the comparisons. Nonetheless, we show that detailed accuracy
evaluations of modern terrestrial clocks imply that these new clocks are likely
to have a stability better than any astronomical source up to comparison times
of at least hundreds of years. This article is intended to provide a correct
appreciation of the relative merits of natural and artificial clocks. The use
of natural clocks as tests of physics under the most extreme conditions is
entirely appropriate; however, the contention that these natural clocks,
particularly white dwarfs, can compete as timekeepers against devices
constructed by mankind is shown to be doubtful.
