Dinosaur Nests and Tracks – During a World-Wide Flood?
Actually, the Biblical Flood lasted about a year with Noah and his family still on the ark during this entire time – well beyond the 40 days of rainfall.

As far as the physical evidence is concerned, the actual science, consider the fact that dinosaurs worldwide were stressed (throughout the fossil record), were buried by water-born sediments with bodies in layers above their footprints, that their remains still contained preserved soft tissues, proteins, and even DNA, and even high levels of radiocarbon within their tissues. Also, there is the problem of the high detrimental DNA mutation rate for all slowly reproducing creatures (like mammals, birds, and larger reptiles – likely to include dinosaurs as well) leading to an inevitable decay of genetic information over time beyond the power of natural selection to correct (i.e., devolution, not evolution). How are all of these features explained by the NeoDarwinian story of origins? It seems to me that these facts fit much more neatly within the biblical account of origins…

In short, I suggest you do a bit more reading and studying for yourself regarding what are and are not “proven facts and history”.

---

Dinosaur Nests and Tracks – During a World-Wide Flood?

I admire your certitude and surety, Sean.

Likewise 😉

As I recall, it was you who confidently told me that I obviously didn’t know what I was talking about… with minimal “reservation”.

(1) If the dinosaurs managed to survive the 40 days and nights of rain and avoid becoming egg bound during the many months (“majority of the year-long Flood,” which you propose) of extraordinarily severe conditions during which asteroids (as you seem to suggest) struck the planet, massive displacements and heating of water occurred from major continental crust movements, and multiple giant tsunamis repeatedly circled the globe, when and how did all those nasty (and surely some friendly) dinosaurs finally die off? Did Noah and his family members have to finish them off? Seriously.

Most dinosaurs seem to have died out by the end of the Cretaceous – with most of the trackways ending within the mid-Jurassic and most of the body fossils being buried in the Cretaceous above the footprints (which is most easily explained with a Flood model it seems to me).

(2) Why did all the dinosaurs die off, but not other reptile groups like the crocodilians, or contemporary avian and mammalian groups? Surely many of the smaller dinosaur species were more harmless and less threatening to humans than crocodiles and bears. Did God just say, “let this entire clade be destroyed outside the ark” while going out of his way to preserve others within the ark?

Some of the smaller ones didn’t die off – like the alligators and crocodiles you mention. Ellen White does say that some types of animals, probably including certain types of dinosaurs, were deliberately excluded from the post-Flood world: “There were a class of very large animals which perished at the flood. God knew that the strength of man would decrease, and these mammoth animals could not be controlled by feeble man.” (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4a, p. 121). Perhaps other varieties survived the Flood as well that are no longer with us? Certainly a great many different types of animals did exist after the Flood that are now extinct for various reasons…

_________________

Sorry, but I have a few more questions. Where do you get the following facts?

(1) “Before the Flood there were no great oceans or continents as we have today. There were only rivers and shallow seas.”

The Bible suggests that it didn’t rain before the Flood, but that the ground was watered each day by dew. The Bible also mentions four great rivers that watered the Earth, and Ellen White mentions a sea, but no large oceans like we have today. Ellen White also comments that, “Rain had never yet fallen, but a mist or dew had fallen upon the earth, causing vegetation to flourish.” (EGW, SRGES 42.3). The lack of large oceans would have made the no-rain environment possible and would have made the weather much more mild and predictable.

(2) “The Earth was a fairly flat place compared to today’s world.” It consisted of “rolling hills and the ‘highest’ rolling mountains of a thousand or so feet tall.” Where do you get 1,000 feet as the maximum elevation?

As far as a lack of very high mountains, even mainstream geologists describe a very low-relief or fairly flat Earth during the early Paleozoic.

As an aside, it has been calculated that if the earth’s surface were completely flat, with no high mountains and no deep ocean basins, that water currently on the surface of the planet (not counting the oceans of water beneath the mantel of the Earth) would cover the earth to a depth of over 8,000 feet. So, I suppose it is possible for at least a few of the pre-Flood “mountains” to be up to around 8,000 feet tall. The point is that there was no tectonic activity and no active mountain building going on before the Flood. Generally speaking, it seems to have been a fairly “flat” word with no extensive mountain ranges of massive mountains like we have today. It just seems to have been a very different world.

Mrs. White also describes the “mountains” before the Flood as being symmetrical or “regular in shape”. She says, “The beautiful, regular-shaped mountains had disappeared. Stones, ledges, and ragged rocks appeared upon some parts of the earth which were before out of sight.” (EGW, SRGES 47.4) This is consistent with the time of the rise of large rocky and very jagged and irregular mountain ranges toward the end of the Paleozoic and then throughout the Flood and continuing to this day. Again, before this time, there seem to have been no such large mountain ranges as we have today.

(3) During the flood the waters were “a thousand or so feet” in height.

In other words, the Flood was easily deep enough to produce massive tsunamis that could traverse the entire planet… even by the most conservative estimates.

(4) There were “massive earthquakes that would have been produced around the entire world.”

If the crust of the planet is all broken up within a single day, creating moving continental plates that start to crash into each other, subduct underneigth each other, and start building massive mountain chains and ocean trenches, it seems like a forgone conclusion that this is going to result in massive earthquakes all around the world…

(5) Asteroids (even one) struck the earth during the flood.

There is quite a bit of evidence for numerous impacts from large asteroids hitting the Earth within the geologic record. One example is the Chicxulub crater located near the town of Chicxulub at the tip of the Yucatán peninsula which it the Earth during the formation of the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary (K–Pg boundary), producing a crater some 186 miles across. Then, there is the Acraman Crater located in southern Australia with diameter of 56 miles, which it the Earth during the Cambrian period. The Woodleigh Crater is another Australian crater some 75 miles across that hit the Earth during the later Paleozoic. The largest Australian asteroid was estimated to have been 10 km in diameter and created a 248 mile crater close to Queensland during the Paleozoic (Link). And the list goes on and on…

(6) There was any kind of “breakup of the Earth’s crust” during the flood.

The Genesis account says, “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month–on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.” (Genesis 7:11). That sounds to me like the moment of catastrophe – like the moment of impact of some massive asteroid that was powerful enough to break up the crust of the Earth and create the continental plates as well as rapid continental drift.

(7) There were any tsunamis at all during the flood.

How would tsunamis be avoided given many large asteroid impacts and massive earthquakes all around the world?

(8) Dinosaurs survived more than the 40 days and nights of rain.

Why not?

(9) Dinosaurs layed eggs during the flood.

There are lots and lots of dinosaur eggs within the fossil record all around the world… with many showing signs of stress as well as being laid in mud flows, some of which were increasing and still flowing while the eggs were being laid.

(10) Dinosaur footprints were not created before or after the flood.

Do you know of any T. rex prints within the Cenozoic layers?

(11) Only atheistic scientists come up with “just so” stories that go beyond available data.

Where did I say that?

(12) Could any portion of your account be a “just so” story?

Of course, I personally think my “stories” (many of which are also told by the authors of the Bible) are consistent with the currently available empirical evidence. However, all useful hypotheses or stories about the world in which we live are open to at least the potential for falsification – of being wrong.

---

Dinosaur Nests and Tracks – During a World-Wide Flood?

Your understanding of tsunamis is still way off. They don’t consist of a single wave; thus, the multiple waves would cause even greater fragmentation and cancellation when they meet on the opposite side of the planet. I don’t know how far a tidal wave can carry, but friction will slow the wave propogation, and more so with less water depth and increasing amounts of sediment in the water. In deep water, the wavelengths are very long but shallow, and waves travel at fast speed; only as they approach shallow water do they build height, but they also slow down.

And your point is? Again, we are talking about a completely flooded fairly flat (low relief) Earth with no continents, deep oceans, or large mountain chains (just beginning to form after the initial massive and sudden breakup of the Earth’s crust). The initial impact(s) that broke up the Earth’s crust would have released huge amounts of energy, creating massive tsunamis. And, the breakup of the Earth’s crust would have also produced massive earthquakes as well as huge tsunamis of their own. The illustration below shows what the impact of a meteor of just ~30km in diameter would look like (Link):

So, even though tsunamis are comprised of multiple waves, given the above scenario, they would easily traverse the entire globe, laying sediment down over one or more of what are now continental regions. Of course, this would have used up energy and the “repropagation” of such tsunamis on the opposite side of the globe would have been reduced – obviously. Again, however, there wasn’t just one tsunami. There were many many tsunamis being generated throughout the Flood – being more concentrated toward the beginning in number and size.

After all, consider what computer simulations show for a relative small asteroid (2/3 of a mile) would do if it hit the ocean today. A computer simulation of an asteroid impact tsunami developed by scientists at the University of California, Santa Cruz, shows waves as high as 400 feet sweeping onto the Atlantic Coast of the United States (Link). And, this is a relatively small asteroid impact compared to one needed to break up the entire Earth’s crust in a “single day”. The same is true for the massive earthquakes that would have been produced around the entire world and the huge tsunamis that they would have generated on their own. The amount of energy produced, and the resulting size of the tsunami produced, increases more than linearly with the diameter of the asteroid (since the volume, therefore mass, of a sphere of a given material increases exponentially with a linear increase in the diameter as follows: V=4/3πr^3).

For example, an asteroid with the size of 4 km (2.5 mi) in diameter falling onto the 5 km (3.1 mi) deep ocean would blast the water off the ocean floor for at least 60 km (37 mi), and make a wave over 200 m (660 ft) high on the southern end of Chile and the Antarctic Peninsula. After ten hours, waves around 35 m (115 ft) would reach Tasmania, Fiji and Central America, and the New Zealand east coast would be washed with 60 m (200 ft) high waves. If the impact object was 1 km (0.6 mi) in diameter, the wave heights would be five times less (Link).

So how deep was the ocean at the time of the flood? You have argued that the waters were fairly uniform in depth because you seem to know that “there were no large mountain chains or distinct continents.” Obviously, waves can’t persist at “thousands of feet tall,” as you have imagined, unless the water is much, much, much deeper than the 60 feet (40 cubits) above the highest land, as mentioned in scripture. If the seas are 100 feet in depth, then a wave can’t persist at greater than 200 feet in height because the bottom of the wave would be knocked out. Waves thousands of feet tall, going around and around the globe, according to your claim? Then you’re going to need seas that are thousands of feet deep, which would mean that there must be very tall mountains if they were covered to a depth of only 40 cubits.

How tall are the highest mountain chains today? – over 12,000 feet? If, before the Flood, you had rolling hills and the “highest” rolling mountains of a thousand or so feet tall, I wouldn’t call that “very tall” now, would you?

Obviously, if there were areas of dry land during the many months of the flood’s duration, which you have also claimed, those waves “thousands of feet tall” would grow to tens of thousands of feet tall as they approached the dry land(!); they would collapse partially or completely as they rolled across the dry land; and they would diffract sideways around the area of dry land, again creating very complex waveforms that would break up the massively tall waves.

I’m talking about waves hundreds or even “thousands of feet tall” at their max height. Again, if all the “mountains” before the Flood were covered with water there would be no dry land except for fairly short periods of time when a tsunami was coming (which would pull the water from a place before it arrived). Remember also, before the Flood there were no great oceans or continents as we have today. There were only rivers and shallow seas. The Earth was a fairly flat place compared to today’s world. Such a relatively flat world, when covered with a thousand or so feet of water on average would have easily allowed for massive tsunamis to traverse the entire globe. Yes, lot of energy would have been used up during this process. However, I mention again that there wasn’t just one massive tsunami nor was the Flood a simple symmetrical process (see image below of the known asteroid impact sites around the world; Link). It was indeed complex Flood…

You’ve done a good job of revising your description of the flood events, but you’ve got more work to do. I still see no way that “paleocurrents” in a uniform direction supports a global flood. If anything, the very complex flood that you have now admitted had to be the case would be consistent with a hypothesis of largely random paleocurrents. Post hoc explanations based on uninformed imagination are simply “just so” stories.

What have I revised? Paleocurrents are indeed largely random (from a continent-wide perspective at least) above the Paleozoic and some of the Mesozoic. However, within the Paleozoic in particular there are clear continent-wide paleocurrent patterns. Sure, they aren’t perfectly symmetrical or unidirectional by any means, but the patterns are quite clear in a continent-wide distribution. This is not at all difficult to explain from the perspective of a complex massive Noachian-style Flood. However, such features are very difficult to explain from the perspective of tens or hundreds of millions of years of slow uniformitarian geologic evolution. The same thing is true for dinosaurs being stressed out around the entire globe the entire time and for their body fossils to generally be found in layers above their footprints… not to mention numerous other features of geologic and fossil records that strongly favor a catastrophic model of origins.

---

Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Obviously, I’m not talking about women who don’t understand how IUDs and hormonal birth control work. I’m talking about women who do understand. And, according to your cited reference, the majority of women who have such knowledge would not stop using such forms of birth control. Given your position that full human life begins at the moment of conception, such fully-informed women would most certainly be guilty of pre-meditated first-degree murder – before God. Again, morally speaking, it doesn’t matter at all what a human government may or may not say or do. Human governments don’t determine true morality. What really matters is what God thinks. Are such fully-informed women murderers before God? The same as a woman who kills her baby at full term? – just before it would otherwise be born naturally? That’s my question here. I could not make the accusation of murder against a woman using hormonal birth control or IUDs because there really is no unambiguous Scriptural support for your position that full human life begins at the moment of conception – as far as I’m able to tell. That’s the bottom line here.

As far as your argument that the word Gabriel used for John the Baptist before he was born was the same as for a baby that had been born (supporting the equal moral value of the unborn), the Greek that Gabriel used here was: βρέφος. Notice, however, that Gabriel did not use this particular word until John was already six months old (Luke 1:36-41). So, again, as previously discussed with you, I fail to see how Gabriel is defining John as a full human being from the moment of conception here.

After all, an early embryo can split in two, or three or four or five embryos – ending in identical offspring. Yet, although genetically identical, each baby produced in this manner is a unique person. Twins may have identical genetics and indistinguishable bodies, yet they are uniquely different people before God. When did the unique identify of each of these identical twins or triplets, etc., begin? Clearly, not at the moment of conception. You see, the creation of unique genetics isn’t the same thing as the creation of a unique soul or individual person.

You say that I’m unable to provide Scriptural evidence for the dichotomy between the moral value of a person and “its nature”. Well, where is your definitive Scriptural evidence in support for a single cell or small clump of a few cells being fully human? As a relevant aside, where does the Scripture talk about “brain death”? Yet, we do not consider it “murder” or even “manslaughter” to “pull the plug” or harvest the organs of someone who is definitively brain dead – even if the rest of the body is still alive. Why is that do you think? Obviously, because there is no “false dichotomy” here even though Scripture doesn’t specifically address such a situation. The same could very reasonable be true of the human embryo as well. There simply is no definitive Scripture otherwise as far as I can tell.

As far as the LXX, Masoretic, and DSS all “agreeing”, with you I presume, regarding Exodus 21:22-25, well, I just don’t see it that way – and neither do many others, to include many well known historians and Christian leaders and thinkers. There has been a widespread and nuanced theological debate about the beginning of life in the history of Christianity. The idea that personhood begins at the moment of conception is far from a universally agreed upon matter of historical Christian doctrine. When viewed in the long history of the Christian tradition, it is the minority position. In any case, Exodus 21:22-25 does read differently in the LXX and none of the translations seem to definitively support your position. Ancient Jewish scholars certainly didn’t take your perspective. Since the death of a person would be murder or manslaughter, and carry a different penalty, most rabbinic sources deduce from these verses that a fetus has a different status. The Babylonian Talmud states that: “The embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day.” So, I’m afraid that the “weight of evidence” is not clearly on your side here – at least not as best as I am able to tell. Certainly nothing in the New Testament definitively clears up this question in your favor.

The other names your mention present no more convincing arguments than you present – as far as I can tell. They may be less abrasive in their approach (certainly Nic is a very kind and tenderhearted man), but the basic arguments used are very similar to those forwarded by Andrew – just not convincing to me despite my honest efforts to carefully consider them as best as I am able.

Now, it is interesting to me that you actually argue that my position on abortion, “my own definition”, is clear enough to indict those who have committed late-term abortions of murder. If so, I fail to understand your argument that I’ve said and done “nothing” here to make my position clear to the church. The leadership of the SDA Church is well aware of my position.

---

Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Andrew’s response (Link):
____________

Please notice that by Dr. Pitman’s own argument his very own Adventist Church supports the murder of the unborn (see @25:01) yet notice in his response that he completely ignores this. The Adventist Church, to which Pitman belongs, supports the violent torture and murder of boys and girls in utero yet Pitman spends his time criticizing……Prolife Andrew. To use an analogy, if you belonged to a church that supports rape or slavery why would you then complain about another church member who opposes this? Pitman complains that Andrew is “needlessly abrasive in his tone” but, to further the analogy, at least Andrew doesn’t support rape or slavery! Apparently, an abrasive tone is worth more criticism than supporting or practicing murder. My video is vindicated.

A few additional points:

1.
Pitman does everyone a favor by openly proving the point. He says “Surprisingly, Andrew would evidently be fine with a “lesser charge” such as “involuntary manslaughter” RESPONSE: As was explicitly stated in the video @15:29 onwards it was stated “government to make illegal the manufacture sale and use of chemicals that are used to kill or do kill other human beings Dr Pitman however completely ignores this.” And how does Pitman respond? By doing exactly that, ignoring this fact. Andrew’s opinion is irrelevant to the premise of the argument which Pitman ignores: The government can protect the right to life. It can charge people with crimes for destroying an innocent life. The degree of the crime and one’s culpability is determined by the government, not by Andrew. Pitman, again, just ignores the argument. (See also the video @56:29 onwards).

2.
In his response under the video Pitman says “It’s like arguing that deliberately putting lethal poison into apples or candy or medication at the supermarket isn’t really premeditated murder because the one doing this doesn’t know exactly when someone will actually die. That argument is clearly false on its face.” This is another falsehood because Pitman is confusing (1) birth control pills that prevent implantation with (2) injecting poison into supermarket foods. The big difference between the two is knowledge. In the former most women have no idea how contraceptives work. The vast majority of women who take contraceptives do so ignorant of how they work while, in Pitman’s example, injecting poison relies upon knowledge. Most women do not know how contraceptives work and if they did know it would change their behavior. For example, in 2010 a journal for obstetrics and gynecology reported that 45% of the women said that they would not consider using a birth control method that had post-fertilization effects, and 48% of women said that if they found out they were using a method that had post-fertilization effects, they would stop using that method. Lopez-del Burgo C, Lopez-de Fez CM, Osorio A, Guzmán JL, de Irala J. Spanish women’s attitudes towards post-fertilization effects of birth control methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010 Jul;151(1):56-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.03.012. Epub 2010 Apr 13. PMID: 20392555. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20392555/

3.
Pitman says “despite Andrew’s adamant assertion that the angel Gabriel defined John the Baptist as being of full moral value from the moment of conception, Gabriel never actually said that. Gabriel was simply noting that the Word of God, the foreknowledge of God, never fails.” RESPONSE: This is both false and absurd as Gabriel is describing a physical situation wherein the nature of the unborn is defined with the exact same Greek words for born sons. Pitman assumes a false dichotomy between “moral value” of the unborn and its nature but he is unable to provide any scriptural evidence for such a dichotomy.

4.
Pitman says “Taken together, all of the translations of this passage [Exodus 21:22-23] leave the question as to the moral value of the human embryo as not clearly answered or defined.” This is false because as was explicitly stated in the video, the Masoretic, LXX, and DSS all agree. The weight of the evidence is against Pitman here. And as was noted above, Pitman is here assuming a dichotomy for which he has no evidence. Furthermore, as was noted explicitly in the video @49:13, Pitman is committing a category error by comparing unintentional vs. intentional. Despite this being addressed explicitly Pitman ignores this as well. (This is the same Pitman @54:16 who criticizes others for rejecting the weight of evidence).

5.
Arguably, one of the biggest falsehoods is when Pitman complains that Prolife Andrew is “often sarcastic and needlessly abrasive in his tone and has a habit of misrepresenting or distorting the positions of those he attacks in his YouTube videos. He’s just not even handed in how he presents and deals with the those who hold differing views. I just don’t see this as being at all Christlike or remotely helpful.” This is false because Prolife Andrew’s videos began in 2017. There have been many prolife voices within Adventism especially since the late 1980s and early 1990s. Pitman complains about Andrew’s tone but doesn’t make such accusations against those who for decades preceded Andrew because he can’t. Nic Samojluk, Doug Yowell, Teresa Beem, Dr. Martin Weber, George Gainer, George Lawson, Dr. Richard Fredericks, etc. were all well known and continue to be outspoken about the Adventist Church’s support for murder. As was mentioned in the video @34:50 Pitman also ignores the arguments of Drs. Robert George and Christopher Tollefson who are some of the most highly respected, articulate voices concerning the ethics of (embryonic) abortion. For these people Pitman can’t make accusations of “abrasive tone” so he simply continues his trend of just ignoring them. This tactic was explicitly noted @58:56 and Pitman just again vindicates the accuracy of the video.

Pitman belongs to a church that has, by his own definition, officially and publicly supported the violent murder of helpless, little children for over fifty years.

---

Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Andrew Michell (AKA: ProLife Andrew) has put out a lengthy video in response to my article on abortion.

His YouTube Channel can be found here: Link
And his Facebook page here: Link
And his page on X here: Link

While I commend Andrew’s passion to protect the lives of the unborn, I find his argument that full human life begins at the moment of conception unconvicting – at least inconclusive. I mean, if the full moral value of human life truly begins at the moment of conception, as Andrew, the Catholic Church, and many Protestants believe, then all women who use various forms of birth control that block embryologic development (after fertilization) are forms of premeditated murder (to include IUDs and various birth control medications).

• Progestin-only pills (mini-pill): These pills thicken cervical mucus, making it harder for sperm to reach the egg, and thin the lining of the uterus, making it less hospitable for implantation.
• Combined oral contraceptives (the pill), patch, vaginal ring, and injections: These methods prevent ovulation, meaning no egg is released for fertilization, and also thicken cervical mucus and thin the uterine lining.
• Contraceptive implant (Nexplanon): This small rod inserted under the skin releases progestin, reducing pregnancy by reducing ovulation, thickening cervical mucus, and thinning the uterine lining reducing implantation.
• Hormonal IUD: These IUDs release progestin, which changes the cervix and uterus to prevent sperm from reaching an egg and also makes it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant.
• Copper IUD: This IUD uses copper to prevent pregnancy by creating an environment that is unfavorable for sperm and fertilization, and also disrupts the lining of the uterus, making implantation less likely.
• Emergency contraception: Some emergency contraceptive pills, like Plan B, can prevent implantation if taken soon after unprotected sex.

So, are women who use such birth control methods truly guilty of murder? – as Andrew’s position would indicate?

While it is true that the genetics of a person are set at conception, what about the moral worth of a person? You see, science cannot address this question. So, where can one turn to find out the answer? Well, as Christians, the Bible should be our first and primary source to search for answers to moral questions. And, I applaud Andrew for trying to do this. In support of the concept that full human life begins at the moment of conception Andrew cites various Biblical passages. Here are examples of Bible passages that Andrew finds most convincing in this regard:

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” – Psalms 51:5

“Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.” – Luke 1:36-37

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” – Psalms 139:13

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” – Jeremiah 1:5

For Andrew, these and other similar passages are conclusive evidence of the full value of humanity starting at the moment of conception. However, many honest Christians just don’t see it this way. Andrew cannot understand how anyone could honestly disagree with him after hearing out his arguments, but I for one am honestly not convinced. And, it’s not because I don’t want to know the truth as God wishes me to know it. It’s because I don’t see anywhere in these passages that Andrew cites where God makes the idea clear that the full value of humanity begins at the moment of conception.

Add to this the passage in Exodus 21:22-25 (discussed in some detail in my article above) that seems to support the conclusion that there is a spectrum as to the moral value of human life during embryological/fetal development. Certainly the writers of the LXX (3rd to 1st century B.C.) supported this conclusion hundred years before the Masoretic Text was written (7th to 10th centuries A.D.). And, while it is true that the Samaritan Pentateuch overlapped the production of the LXX, it is not true that the language of the Samaritan Pentateuch, regarding this passage in Exodus, is definitively unambiguous – certainly not unambiguous enough to discount the LXX translation of this passage. Taken together, all of the translations of this passage leave the question as to the moral value of the human embryo as not clearly answered or defined.

But what about the passages that Andrew cites? Don’t these passages clearly demonstrate God’s Design of the embryo from the very moment of conception? And, if so, is anyone at liberty to destroy or even hinder what God is forming? Well, look at the passage from Jeremiah 1:5 where God explains that he knew of the future existence of Jeremiah before he was even conceived. This passage simply speaks to the foreknowledge of God rather than to the moral value of a human embryo or a single fertilized cell. It really doesn’t answer the question as to if a deliberate ending of an an early pregnancy, such as after a few days of fertilization, is truly considered “murder” in the site of God. Also, despite Andrew’s adamant assertion that the Angel Gabriel defined John the Baptist as being of full moral value from the moment of conception, Gabriel never actually said that. Gabriel was simply noting that the Word of God, the foreknowledge of God, never fails. But what about David claiming that he was “sinful from the moment of conception”? Well, it’s hard for me to definitively argue that this is clearly more than poetic license. After all, Jesus Himself noted that unless a person consciously knows the truth, and deliberately choses to do otherwise, there is no sin (John 9:41; John 15:22; James 4:17). How then can a single cell, or a small cluster of cells that is unable to think or act, be guilty of sin? – beyond the fact that we are conceived and born in a state of moral separation from God? Again, I fail to see such arguments as conclusive support for Andrew’s position that women who use the various forms of birth control described above are guilty of murder. Not even the founders of the SDA Church said anything about full humanity being instantly realized at the moment of conception. Yes, they were opposed to abortion (Link). However, modern birth control methods had yet to be invented. Would they really be opposed to such birth control methods? We cannot know, for sure, but I doubt it. Certainly there is no clear or definitive guidance regarding this particular question from the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, or the Founders of the SDA Church.

And, that’s my main concern here. At what point would I be willing to accuse a woman of being a murderer? – worthy of arrest and execution for deliberately taking the life of another human being? I just do not see the clear Biblical support, or support from any other inspired authority, for making such a charge when it comes to a single cell or a tiny ball-shaped cluster of cells. Sure, once the body of the baby is formed, and certainly once the brain of the baby is functional, things become much more clear in my own mind regarding the moral value of the baby as a full human being with all of the moral God-given rights thereof. It’s just that I honestly see no solid basis for accusing a woman of murder for blocking or terminating a pregnancy very early on following conception when the pregnancy consists only of a single cell or a small cluster of cells.

What is also most interesting is that, in his review of my article, Andrew gets a bit upset with me saying that I’m the one using “inflammatory language” such as “first-degree cold-blooded murder”. Surprisingly, Andrew would evidently be fine with a “lesser charge” such as “involuntary manslaughter” (57:00) for women who use birth control that prevents embryonic implantation or who otherwise deliberately abort their babies. I’m actually really surprised by this particular argument since, if one truly views a full human life as beginning at the moment of conception, how can one argue that the deliberate termination of such a life is anything other than a deliberate pre-meditated murder? I mean, it’s almost as if Andrew doesn’t really believe what he’s saying regarding the full value of human life beginning at conception. He does discuss birth control pills or IUDs (starting around the 17-minute mark) that block the implantation of the embryo, thus aborting it, but claims that the mother’s lack of knowledge as to exactly when this happens means that she isn’t really guilty of premeditated murder. Really? It’s like arguing that deliberately putting lethal poison into apples or candy or medication at the supermarket isn’t really premeditated murder because the one doing this doesn’t know exactly when someone will actually die. That argument is clearly false on its face. And, contrary to Andrew’s claims, this has nothing at all to do with the government proving or doing anything. It has nothing to do with human governments at all. It has to do with the morality of a woman deliberately doing something that she knows will likely end pregnancy shortly after conception. If this act really is the taking of full human life, it is premeditated murder before God. There’s just no other term to use if full human life really does begin at the moment of conception.

Another relevant issue involves the use of IUDs and birth control pills to regulate hormonal issues that many women suffer. Andrew suggests that condom use would overcome such issues. However, even if condoms are always and correctly used with every act of intercourse, they have around a 3% failure rate (Link, Link) with some studies showing a failure rate of condoms of up to 16% per year (Link). In other words, even if a condom is being used by the husband every single time he has sex with his wife, at best there is still around a 3% chance of impregnating his wife within a given year. If she is also on hormonal birth control, that means that there is a ~3% chance of killing a real human being if full human life truly begins at conception. How is this a viable solution given the reality of Andrew’s position? Basically, what married couples would be left with is the Catholic concept of not having vaginal sex unless they are actually trying to get pregnant. Just because not every such effort would be successful, as Andrew points out in his video, is completely irrelevant to the required motive that would be necessary before couples could engage in sex without guilt – without the possibility of committing murder. In other worlds, no sexually active woman could ever take advantage of the benefits of hormonal birth control without the guilt of murder on her conscience – even if her husband always uses a condom (which is also less fun by the way).

Andrew also claims that I have done “nothing” to combat abortion, not even late-term abortion (i.e., an induced ending of pregnancy after the 20th week) – despite the fact that I’ve written this particular article calling late term abortion murder in no uncertain terms – and having directly prevented such an abortion when it was in my power to do so as a medical officer in the US Army (something that not even Andrew has been able to do). In fact, several church leaders have contacted me due to their favorable impression of my article on abortion, including religious liberty lawyers. Portions have even been included in religious liberty literature regarding this topic. The religious liberty lawyer for northern and central California conferences, Stephen Allred, included much of my article in the appendix of his book, “Do Justice: The Case for Biblical Social Justice” (Link). And no, he is no relation to the notorious abortion doctor Edward C. Allred, who outright murdered a great many late-term babies.

I guess Andrew feels that this doesn’t go nearly far enough. It’s just that I honestly don’t see his position as entirely accurate or conclusive or his approach to this topic as being more positive than negative. For me, Andrew’s position is without clear Biblical support regarding the claim that full humanity begins at conception and is inconsistent, as noted above, in that he argues for a lesser charge than “murder” for women who deliberately abort very early in pregnancy. He is often sarcastic and needlessly abrasive in his tone and has a habit of misrepresenting or distorting the positions of those he attacks in his YouTube videos. He’s just not even handed in how he presents and deals with the those who hold differing views. I just don’t see this as being at all Christlike or remotely helpful – at least not for me personally. It ends up harming the positive impact that one could have on an important topic, which is probably the reason that Andrew is largely ignored by the leadership of the SDA Church. Now, I understand that he believes that this issue is clearly black and white, to the point that no one his his/her right mind could honestly question his position. Perhaps, however, there are a few, like me, who just don’t have the same mental capacity to grasp what Andrew sees so clearly?

Now, I do appreciate the seriousness and righteousness of Andrew’s effort to save lives. While I may disagree with or fail to understand his arguments or his methods/approach, I do see his motives as being very good indeed! I have no problem with his sincerity or his passion to save lives. The attempt to save lives is a noble effort. However, the process, the method used, is also important. I mean, consider that Jesus, who was trying to save souls as well as lives, was much more patient and tactful in his approach – a pattern that would serve us all well to emulate as we deal with others who don’t see things in quite the same way. Yes, I know that Jesus did rarely call out exceptional cases with very harsh language. However, generally speaking, such methods should be avoided if at all possible – especially when dealing with fellow Christians who are sincere and who are actually trying to learn and to do what it right.

---

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
God gave rational empirical “scientific” evidence to believe Noah’s message.

Many of the amazing discoveries of medical science in our day, to include the gift of vaccines and an understanding as to how the human immune system actually works, are not opposed to the Scriptures or the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen White did not opposed the use of vaccines). They are amazing gifts from God that should not be ignored or disregarded.

In this same line, Barbara O’Neill has made numerous false and misleading claims regarding various medical therapies – particularly regarding the treatment of serious conditions like cancer. She does get some things right, but the things she gets wrong significantly overshadow the things she gets right and have significant hurt people. For example, she wraps people who have cancer (which she falsely claims is caused by fungal infections, promoted by antiobiotics and other pharmaceuticals – Link) in towels soaked in baking soda as a means to treat their cancers when such treatments do not help cancer patients in the least. (Link). Yet, she she makes a lot of money peddling these and other such worthless “therapies” to the gullible. She speaks with great confidence and assurance about things that she doesn’t remotely understand since she has no medical training. It’s not the GC or Church leadership or physicians like me making money off of “Big Pharma”. Rather, it’s the snake-oil salesmen like Peter McCullough and Barbara O’Neill, and others like them, who are making quite a lot of money selling their worthless natural remedies and conspiracy theories to their worldwide audiences. Consider that her Misty Mountain Health Retreat near Kempsey charged clients as much as $2,450 per person for a one-week stay and $8,800 for two people for two weeks. She also sells numerous books and travels around giving paid conferences and seminars. Let’s just say that she makes a very good living doing what she does (Link).

It’s not like I’m opposed to natural remedies that actually work, of course. I’m just opposed to those who promote “natural remedies” just because they’re supposedly “natural” when they don’t actually do what they’re claimed to do by those who have no understanding of medical science who make money selling their “remedies” to the gullible and the desperate. If you want to see some natural remedies promoted by someone who actually does known what he’s talking about, look up the YouTube videos put out by the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult.

---

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
While recommending the vaccines, the vaccine statements clearly left the decision to vaccinate, or not, to the individual. They had nothing to do with government funding (yet another conspiracy theory). These statements were issued in an honest effort to save lives, not to make money. The “medical minds” at the BoT Symposium generally support anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists like Peter McCullough who are known for promoting misleading or downright false claims regarding the pandemic and the mRNA vaccines.

---