Our Websites

A lesson from biscuits

Have you ever been hungry? Suppose, in your hungered state, you come to my house and ask for something to eat. You’d likely be upset if I offer you a cup of flour, a spoon full of salt, or a spoon full of baking soda. How about a half of a cup of Crisco, chased down by a cup of buttermilk to drink? Surely, that would taste terrible! Maybe you’d be happier if we mix them all together and make biscuits. Now that’s more like it!

You see, the individual ingredients for biscuits taste lousy. Yet, they work together to make biscuits. In the same way, everything that happens to you may not be good, but will work together for good if you love God and are called according to His purpose (see Romans 8:28). Surrender your life to God—the good and the bad—and watch what He will do with it!

Spread the word | Share this post: Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Pin on Pinterest
Email this to someone


9 Responses to A lesson from biscuits

  1. Jeremey Chinshue January 5, 2011 at 9:01 am #

    That’s right. And let’s not get carried away and think that God does these bad things to us. Oh no no, the Bible doesn’t say that. There is a Devil out there, and he’s a big poop head. God can use the bad and make it good.

  2. Melissa Eggert January 6, 2011 at 2:34 pm #

    Love your analogy! But now I want some biscuits! LOL

  3. ellyn taylor January 7, 2011 at 9:59 pm #

    Good God bad devil

  4. JP Minnaar January 10, 2011 at 4:54 am #

    I saw this on one of the seminaars. Our domestic worker asked me a question not to long ago bout why bad things happen if there is a God. My answer was that even in the bad one can find good. That’s purely from a faith perspective.

    I love this answer oom Kent gives. Should have remembered it and would have not confused others. I mean i could not answer logicaly, so i am sure that she thought if a christian could not answer this, whats going on.

  5. Geno Castagnoli January 10, 2011 at 10:04 am #

    It is interesting that Kent Hovind’s most recent post doesn’t allow comments.

    Could that be because he was so thoroughly refuted the last time he brought up “lies in the textbooks?”

    We’re STILL waiting for ANY CSE confirmation that ANY textbook says: “When you die you cease to exist.”

    I expect we’ll wait a v – e – r – y long time too.

  6. Jay Liverstitch January 10, 2011 at 10:56 am #

    For some reason comments are closed on the most recent blog topic. I will post my comments in regard to that topic here for the time being if that’s ok.

    I’d like to first note that Kent is, I can only assume, willfully ignoring an entire order of dinosaurs when he claims that “reptiles have 4 legs” even though he alludes to this very order of dinosaurs in his attached video. I can only conclude from this that he intends to deceive, as he is obviously aware of the order “Saurischia”, the so called “Lizard Hipped” dinosaurs. Members of this order are bipedal, and among them are the most well known dinosaurs of all time: T-rex. Kent even admits that the theory of evolution states that this bipedal group of dinosaurs are the ones that gave rise to birds. This admitted fact alone destroys his main objection to dinosaur-bird evolution; that an animal with 2 legs and 2 half-wings could neither walk nor fly because clearly, a bipedal animal with “arms” is free to develop those arms into wings without impeding its own locomotion. As is often the case, Kent is his own best refutation.

    Additionally, Archeopteryx’s hip (as well as many other examples I’ll mention below) is representative of other Saurischian dinosaurs that are not, to use Kent’s word, “perching birds”. That is, archeopteryx, based on Kent’s own descriptions, could be called a “lizard hipped bird”. If this is not evidence of transition, I hardly know what would be. Various parts of the video indicate that he knows all of these facts, yet he doesn’t mention them in the same sentence (I suppose it’d be rather obvious if he did). I am always reluctant to accuse anyone of outright lying, but Kent gives me so few choices when his own statements are in such stark disagreement with one another.

    Kent asks in his video, “Why do they keep teaching something that’s been proven wrong for 5 years?”. One might more appropriately ask a similar question of Kent himself; “Why would Kent continue to teach something that he himself disproved less than 5 minutes ago?”.

    Humming birds do not have teeth. I’ll leave it to the reader to study up on the difference between a serrated beak, and a toothed jaw.

    Creationists are often asking for examples of fossilized remains that display clear transitions between two major groups of organisms. Archeopteryx, as well as Microraptor, Velociraptor, Jeholornis, Rahonavis, Enantiornithes and many others represent exactly the type of transitional evidence that creationists like Kent claim do not exist. The above representatives alone, to varying to degrees, have long bony tails, no beak, teeth, most have a non-fused hip-bone, and claws on the feet and wings, all features which are represented in no modern birds, and every theropod dinosaur. In addition, they all had feathers, appear to possess the ability to fly, had hollow bones, and long flight feathers on their forelimbs. Again I’ll note that each of the mentioned features are represented in the above animals to VARYING degrees. That is, some had long bony tails, others had shorter bony tails, some had large teeth, others had diminished teeth. The transition is undeniable to anyone who is aware of them and is honest with themselves.


  7. andrew Ryan January 10, 2011 at 3:04 pm #

    I noticed that too Geno. Kent says that while the dinosaurs’ legs were evolving into wings, they could neither walk nor fly. This presumes that they walked on all fours. What’s he basing this on? There are plenty of birds that can walk, plenty of dinosaurs that obviously could not use their front legs for walking on. So his argument makes no sense.

  8. Mark James January 10, 2011 at 9:34 pm #

    Hi Geno,

    On a previous thread you wrote: “Consider throwing dice then having a process that selects only the 1’s. Is the result still random?”

    I realise that most analogies don’t stand up to close scrutiny but this one collapses a little more easily than most, for a couple of reasons; 1) There are a limited number of outcomes per throw, and; 2) All possible outcomes can be known in advance. As a result you were able to decide to collect 1’s before you even started and for this reason the result is not random (in fact the only slightly random variable is the number of throws it would take to collect a given number of 1’s).

    It would work a little better if you were to make your first throw and then collect whatever number came up. In this case you may still end up with lots of 1’s but if you were asked why you had collected 1’s instead of 2’s, the answer would have to be random chance.

    If the first step in a process is the result of random chance then, no matter how many guided steps follow that first step, everything produced by the process is the result of chance.

  9. John Bebbington January 11, 2011 at 2:20 am #

    I agree, Geno.

    In the present video clip it is fascinating that Kent quotes Alan Feduccia in support of his anti-evolutionary scoff-fest without revealing to his young and innocent audience that Prof Feduccia believes in an even earlier branching than the theropod mob as he believes that birds derived from archosaurs.

    “Some birds have teeth – some don’t” Kent says. No, Kent, no birds have teeth. He shows a slide of a humming bird but any eight-year-old looking at the serrations on a humming bird beak would be able to tell the difference between such markings and individual teeth set in a gum and jaw – even if Kent can’t.

    “Archaeopteryx is a fake” cries Kent. No, it isn’t. The first example discovered was declared by creationists to be a forgery because they did not like the implications of a fossil which possessed features of both dinosaurs and birds. Unfortunately for creationists, eight further specimens were later discovered and no-one declares these to be forgeries. Kent’s “science” is always 25 years behind the times.

    “Thousands of differences exist between dinosaurs and birds”. Of course they do. That is evolution. If birds hadn’t evolved they would still be lizards. If they had evolved only a little bit they would still be archaeopteryx.

    “Billions of other changes”. No, Kent, not billions. Don’t tell lies through wild exaggeration. What is striking is the number of similarities between modern birds and theropods.

    Kent then gives a 50 year-old out-of-context quote by evolutionist W.E.Swinton, another evolutionist who believed strongly in the evolution of birds. Indeed, despite Kent’s claim of “zero” evidence, there is no dispute amongst palaeontologists that birds evolved from theropods.

    “Bird hips” & “lizard hips”. Kent does not understand what he is talking about. “Lizard hips” did not “turn round” during bird evolution. Indeed, birds still have “lizard hips”, a term used only by creationists.

    As for Richard Dawkins, Kent shows by every movement of his lips that he does not understand even the basics of evolutionary theory so why would a scholar such as Dawkins waste his time in debating him. It would be like Hilary Hahn trying to teach me how to play the violin with my oven gloves on.