When I wrote the above comments I indented each paragraph …

Comment on WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation by Lydian Belknap.

When I wrote the above comments I indented each paragraph in order to save space on the column. I was somewhat horrified to see the indentations were not used when it was posted. I hope it makes sense to you readers. (I didn’t notice the option for editing it for some reason)

Lydian Belknap Also Commented

WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
The point I was trying to put across was, because God alone can (and does) accurately predict the future centuries in advance (which no scientist or any other human can do)it seems to me that should show anyone with reasonable intelligence and an open mind that there IS Someone “out there” that can be trusted to accurately tell us what He has done in the past. My unshakable trust in the Bible is based on prophecy which,so far, I haven’t seen anyone on this site that even mentions the word. I have a hard time understanding ‘Why?’.

The Adventists church was founded on prophecy. The church had begun to grow, Ellen and James White were married, and some sort of structure was being formed before they accepted the Sabbath and it was a while after that before it became accepted by all the ‘little flock.’

So I have a hard time understanding why we
pay no attention it now. Of course there always has been–and probably always will be–people whose attitude is, “My mind is made up–don’t try to confusing me with facts!”

I don’t mean to be critical of anyone but, at 87, I’ve “been around the block” a few times and met (and been related to) quite a few folks like that. (Maybe I’ve been guilty of the same thing myself at times!) But the Day IS coming when each and every one of us will have to stand before God’s judgement seat and “give an account” for the way we have lived our lives–whether we like it or not!I believe that time is coming sooner than we think.
According to reputable scientist (yes, there are a lot of them out there) the world will run out of oil in roughly 40 years and to date there is nothing known that can replace it. The world’s whole economy is based on oil (cars, planes, ships, etc) and scientists are working on it but say it will be roughly 40 years before anything comes anywhere close to oil. Meanwhile, some are saying if that doesn’t happen the world will return to small groups of people here and there living in another “horse and buggy” age. All the powerful nations will have disappeared.

Of course. I don’t believe that will happen. Prophecy tells us the USA will play a very important part in the closing events and I believe that.

What this talk tells me is that Jesus will return before things reach the point of the world becoming a bunch of small communities living like folks lived before cars, ships and air planes were invented.

Will He come before the 40 year point arrives–or will He let scientists discover a replacement for it? No one knows for sure but there is a real chance that He will return BEFORE the plus/minus “40 years” are over. Which means His coming could be a lot closer than any of us think. I, for one, hope so!

At any rate. Jesus IS coming back and I believe it is much closer than we even dream of. That’s GOOD NEWS, brothers and sisters. Let’s all be prepared for it!!!


WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation
Sometimes I get a little weary of the “sniping” between many of the folks who post here. While I wholeheartedly agree with those who believe in Creation just as to Bible says, I can’t see that they are making any real impress what so ever on those who believe in evolution. After all, “a person convinced against his (her) will is of the same opinion still!”
We can’t scientifically “prove” creation? (I’m not perfectly sure about that.) But to be 100% positive that they can “prove” evolution isn’t true either no matter how many “scientists” say they can. (Too many “scientists” have had to backtrack on some things they have stated as “hard FACTS” because further research has proven them to be wrong.)
If you think I am all wrong then you haven’t really done your research–you’ve just fallen for what someones (with a lot of degrees behind their name) says and it seems to be the “intelligent” thing to do.
I recommend that you broaden your reading and studying and honestly and carefully research both sides of the question. You just might be surprised to learn of the many respected scientists today who totally reject evolution–and give many solid, scientific reasons for it.
If you want to be intellectually honest you owe it to yourself and those with whom you come in contact to carefully and with an open mind look at both side of the picture. Perhaps there is at least a chance that you aren’t reading the right textbooks or listening to the right tapes. You need to be absolutely certain you know where truth lies–and you can’t do this if you only look at one side of the picture. You’ve never really “grown up” until you’ve learned to think for yourself–and have honestly learned to look at all sides of an issue before deciding what to believe and what to reject.
Get on the internet and go to Creation Miniseries and read some of their books, watch some of their videos–they have a LOT of both
For a starter there are two authors I highly recommend. One is Jonathon Sarfati who has written two books that I have. One is “by Design”, the other (and most recent) is “The Greatest Hoax on Earth”–which is his answer to “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins. Both are excellent
The other author is a biochemist, Michael J. Behe, who wrote the book, Darwin’s Black Box. He is most famous for introducing “Irreducible Complexity.” This means a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to it’s basic function, and where the system will not work if a single part is removed. This is demonstrated by a simple mouse trap which was invented by a human mind. Remove only one part of a mouse trap and it will stop working.
Yet we are supposed to believe that our eyes (for example) which are composed of many, many “parts” and function beautifully just came together by blind chance”? Where is our common sense?
I could mention many other authors and their books or articles but if you aren’t convinced by these two I’m afraid
your mind is already made up and you do not wish to be confused with facts. That, of course, is your privilege but I have a feeling that somewhere down the line you will live to regret it.
Another very important argument in favor of taking the Bible literally and believing in it’s accuracy 100% is Prophecy. I don’t know how many prophecies are in the Bible but someone said they make up almost one quarter of it. I can’t verify that but the ones I do know about that have been fulfilled have been fulfilled down to the smallest detail and I have full confidence that the rest will do the same thing.
Anyone who can do that over and over and over again has to be a lot smarter and a lot more powerful and intelligent than all of the human scientists put together who claim evolution as “fact”–especially ones who have had to retract statements of “fact” more than once. My God has never had to retract anything He has ever said!
Choose you this day who you will believe and serve. If human scientist are your gods, follow them but if God be God follow Him. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!


Recent Comments by Lydian Belknap

A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
So here I sit–a “very old lady”–totally confused and not having a clue as to whether to donate or not–or where to donate if I should.

As things stand now I think I will just continue putting my own little amount to my current “missionary out reach” of buying “Steps to Christ” and “Who Do You Think You Are?” and passing them on to the clerks in the stores where I shop or other people I meet that I think would like them.

If and when you folks decide on what, how and where to help in this very worthy project let me know and I’ll do what I can then.

A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
I just noticed that there is such a program in place in northern California but I would want one that is nation wide. After all, if our kids aren’t already in danger here in the southern union also (as well the rest of the US) it’s most likely only a short matter of time till they will be.

A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
I am far from a wealthy person who could and gladly would donate large sums of money to such a program but I could and would gladly donate some if such assurances were solidly in place. I’m sure there are many “old folks” like me “out there” who feel the same way. (Is there already such a program in place? If so please post all needed information.)

The God of the Gaps
While browsing my rather voluminous file of articles to “save” I ran across this jewel—I think it is worth saving and thinking about–especially the last statement by Darwin himself:
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

While Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy — a plausible mechanism called “natural selection.” Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – Slowly But Surely…

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an “irreducibly complex system”. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called “the hammer,” a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we’ve made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist

Michael Denton wrote, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” [5]

And we don’t need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin’s day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” [6]

1. Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 162.
2. Ibid. p. 158.
3. Michael Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box,” 1996.
4. “Unlocking the Mystery of Life,” documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.
5. Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” 1986, p. 250.
6. Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 155.

I don’t think Sean could have said it better himself!

Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
Sean, I guess I “bit off more than I can chew” when I subscribed to some of your other options.
All I can handle is the ^way it used to be”–like this column still is. Please put me back to this mode of information and I will be very happy. Thanks.