Doonesbury takes on creationism.

60 Responses to “Doonesbury takes on creationism.”

1. decrepitoldfool says:

   April 28, 2008 at 2:32 pm

   So Gene, does that mean you’re not gonna look up gene duplication?  Because you’re clearly only reading the parts of the book that suit you.  And twisting the meaning of those parts to boot.

   I’m outta here.

   Promises, promises.
2. elwedriddsche says:

   April 28, 2008 at 4:18 pm

   For those readers who don’t understand big words like “adaption” and “exaption”, here’s an adaption of the screenplay all y’all can follow.

   So there’s a cartoon that ends in the punchline “because he jacks off a lot”. Gene goes into all hat, no cattle mode and makes a big fuss. “The cartoon is all wrong,” says he, “because it didn’t say whether he choked the chicken or spanked the monkey! And anyway, since he must have choked the chicken he didn’t jack off—they’re two different things!”
3. leguru says:

   April 28, 2008 at 4:23 pm

   Careful, Elwed. You may get PETA mad at you. 
4. decrepitoldfool says:

   April 28, 2008 at 4:37 pm

   It depends whether the monkey likes that sort of thing…
5. elwedriddsche says:

   April 28, 2008 at 4:49 pm

   But more importantly, will the monkey adapt to the spankings? Or is the monkey an exaptation because it wants to spanked? Questions, questions…
6. Ragman says:

   April 28, 2008 at 7:13 pm

   Now it begs the question of species origination.  If some spank the monkey whilst others choke the chicken, what then is the common ancestor of chickens and monkeys??
7. decrepitoldfool says:

   April 28, 2008 at 7:25 pm

   For that matter, WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS!???
8. Last_Hussar says:

   April 28, 2008 at 7:49 pm

   Surely as a good athiest I should Bash the Bishop?
9. elwedriddsche says:

   April 28, 2008 at 8:11 pm

   For that matter, who gave head to the Piltdown Man?
10. leguru says:

    April 29, 2008 at 1:26 am

    Why are you guys making light of a serious site about a cartoon? Uhhh, let me rephrase that . . .