We may have observed mutation rates in the recent past, …

Comment on Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species by Kenneth Christman, M.D..

We may have observed mutation rates in the recent past, but how do we know what mutation rates were 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, or 6,000 years ago? Prior to roughly 6,000 years ago, we can safely say mutation rates were ZERO, as God’s creation was perfect, and there was no sin, death, or deterioration in the genomic code!

Kenneth Christman, M.D. Also Commented

Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
Decay is perfectly natural in a sinful world. There was NO decay prior to the Fall. Non-decay does not require active maintenance on the part of God. His creation was perfect and did not require maintenance like human creations require. Model T’s require active maintenance as they are human creations. The human body God created would have lasted an eternity if sin (disobedience) had not interrupted such perfection. That is when decay started. That is when the genomic code started to deteriorate. It ultimately led to disease and death. God cannot be compared to a mechanic in heaven, as His perfect creation does not require repairs. While the price of sin (disobedience) has been fully paid for, the restoration to perfection has not happened yet. Once it occurs (which I believe will be soon), there will be a complete restoration that will not require a “mechanic” for active maintenance, as decay, degeneration, decay, death (all those ugly D’s) will no longer exist.

As for assuming that genetic mutations have occurred at a constant rate since the fall of Adam and Eve, we should consider the fallacies of assuming constant degradation of Carbon-14 and the problems such assumptions have created. As Creationists, we should exercise caution in making assertions we cannot prove.

As for God being bound by His own laws, let us consider Jesus bringing perfect peace and tranquility just by commanding the elements to be still during a raging storm. We cannot understand such divine power over EVERYTHING, including the power to breath life into a lump of clay which was instantly transformed into a perfectly fine human body with over 5 billion base pairs (the human genome) and able to perfectly replicate without decay or deterioration of the system. Satan also has supernatural power, but God’s power is infinitely greater. Whenever there is supernatural activity, it can come from only of two sources. We do know for a fact that postdiluvian human life spans rapidly contracted from ca. 900 years to circa 70 years in just a few generations. I’m sure most Creationists would agree that God had a hand in this, and that this was not “natural”. Whether He did this by altering the mutation rate, we have no way of knowing, as mutation rates were not measured at that time and there is no way for us to reconstruct those past mutation rates.

As for Einstein, Newton, and others, I would exercise restraint in following any of their religious or theological assumptions.


Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
While data suggesting the hand of the Creator God in the creation of all living things is always welcome, one should exercise great caution in assuming the constancy of mutation rates. After all, God shortened human lifespans from ca. 900 years to ca. 70 years in only a few generations. Do you suppose He might have done that by altering mutation rates? Do you suppose that a powerful God who breathed life into a lump of clay could easily tinker with mutation rates? Furthermore, mutation rates would have highly variable effects on life forms in different species based upon average lifespans. Let us hope and pray that more scientists will be troubled by uncovering data that will lead them to trust the Genesis creation account as the only scientifically logical explanation of how we got here.


Recent Comments by Kenneth Christman, M.D.

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
Your concern about mysticism within Adventism is well founded. Pastor Bill Loveless identified Ellen White in the pages of the Adventist Review as a “true mystic.” “Mysticism” is defined in the dictionary as a euphemism for the occult. Look it up.


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
You are right. I am totally confused as to what distinguishes “Historical Old Covenant” from “Old Covenant Thinking”. You and Chris White maintain that Sabbath observance is not necessary for salvation. Ellen White clearly states that it is necessary. Chris and Ellen CANNOT both be correct.


The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
I am very grateful to you for linking the excellent Chris White presentation on the two covenants. I am thankful that you also arrived at White’s conclusion by stating in your summary that “Keeping the Law does not save us,” even though you took a rather circuitous route. If you and Chris White are correct, then it follows that Ellen White CANNOT be correct in her assertion that the mark of the beast will involve Sabbath observance (keeping the Law), as the book of Revelation clearly teaches that those who refuses this mark WILL be saved, while those who accept this mark WILL NOT be saved.


Christians and the Sabbath
Thank you for your admission that you indeed did alter the record. But, as we both know, these were not mere typos, but rather, clear changes in content. The usual method of altering content is to issue an erratum or addendum, as you must certainly be aware. This is accomplished by simply creating another post! Intellectual integrity is important. Please continue to focus your energy on Creationism, but let us all resolve to keep Creationism above reproach.


Christians and the Sabbath
For some inexplicable reason, you seem to be intent on continuing this Sabbath discussion. For me, however, I conclude that I have labored for you in vain, and not only is this discussion nonproductive, but there is no indication that it ever will be in the future. There seems to be absolutely no desire to accurately interpret Scripture on the basis of common dictionaries, which, I must admit can be restrictive to over-active imaginations. You have severely misquoted even my own posts. You have even altered your own posts! I know because I copied your last post last night, and then, when I read it again on your website, there were additions! Whether or not you have altered my previous posts, I do not know. At this point, I must conclude that this type of intellectual integrity does not lend itself to a rational discussion of things of eternal value. Your sole purpose seems to be winning an argument, while my sole purpose is to understand God’s will for my life.

Your constantly shifting positions on the Sabbath and salvation are sufficient for me to understand that there is great confusion. I am saddened that your definition of Sabbath keeping differs from God’s definition. If, as you maintain, the Roman Catholic Church altered the time definition of Sabbath keeping and you yourself obviously altered God’s definition of the manner of Sabbath keeping, are you any different? You invalidate your arguments by being selective in following the clear commands of both God and Ellen White. These arguments are even more problematic because you claim that those who know the truth about Sabbath observance but reject them are in “open rebellion against God”? Perhaps it is because you forget your own words that you find it necessary to go back and “doctor” your previous posts.

At any rate, I wish you the best, and must leave you to your own devices. While I applaud your efforts in teaching and preaching God’s Creationism in 6 literal days, I hope your style is not a distraction, especially when you claim that something can be both “lawful” and “unlawful” simultaneously.

May God bless you.


Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone