Bring It On!

Creationism v. Evolution, You’re Both Right

March 15th, 2007 | by Omnipotent Poobah |

Hi kids, this is God again.

I know some of you expect me to speak through priests or Pat Robertson, but I don’t trust those guys. They’re always cooking up some kookie shit to make a buck. I know some of you expect me to communicate a little more formally - a little more fire and brimstonish, if you will - than via blogging. But, I try to keep up with the new technology (I even have an iPod loaded with Gregorian chants and gangsta rap…illegal downloads if you must know, but that’s between you and me) and I like the personal touch of blogging.

With all this bickering over Creationism and Darwinism I thought it might be useful for me to explain a few things - after all, I am the one who got the ball rolling.

I hate to break it to you Darwinists out there, but the earth really is 10,000 years old - 10,227 years old for those craving exactness. I made it one day when I was bored and needed a hobby. And boy, it’s been a real hoot over the years - except for that war thing. That one got a little out of hand. My bad. But, the cat’s out of the bag now, so I suppose I’ll just let it run it’s course.

However, all you fish people (what’s up with that? I HATE fish!) don’t break out the champagne quite yet. You guessed right about the age thing, but see, I played a little trick on you. That Adam dude? Pure bunk. There was no Garden of Eden, only a small flat in the Castro and the first guy was named Chuck, Chuck Darwin.

Chuck was a pretty smart fella. He ate an apple - the tasty kind, plucked from a tree and not given to him by a snake - I can’t BELIEVE you fell for that, snakes don’t even have thumbs - and was immediately able to figure out that whole evolution thing. He got it right the first time. You should see this dude rip up a Rubik’s CubeTM or do a little sudoku. Ab-so-frickin’ brilliant.

Some of you might ask, “what about those dinosaur bones, aren’t they more than 10,000 years old?” That’s true enough, but I borrowed the bones from a planet called Rigel 9 and salted a couple of places as a red herring to throw Chuck off the scent. Damn guy figured it out though, so we had a talk and he agreed to keep it a secret and make up a plausible cover story.

Oh, and what about Eve? Well frankly, there was no Eve. Chuck was gay and married to some trash-talking dude by the name of Haggard. Not one of Chuck’s best moves. He was brilliant about the sciences, but the poor bastard never could find the right guy. You know what they say about looking for love in all the wrong places. No, women came a little later. The first one was named Marjorie. She was a cute little chippy, but kind of an airhead. I improved the models later. I never could teach them to read a map, but at least they stop and ask directions, so I guess it isn’t so bad.

So there you have it. You’re both right. If you want to know more, you can contact Ann Landers and ask for my pamphlet, “The Earth and You - An Owner’s Guide”. Just include a stamped, self addressed envelope and $3.95. You’ll receive your pamphlet within seven days and if you act now, I’ll throw in a set of cheap knives and spray on hair (that Ron Popeil is one crazy dude too).

OK, now will all of you just hug and make up (and Dobson, let go off that chick’s ass!)? Having you guys bicker all the time is a real buzz kill. If you keep it up, you’ll ruin a perfectly good hobby. And, I’m not a happy camper when I don’t get my way.

Ecumenically Yours,

Cross Posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!
[tag]religion, humor, creationism, evolution, crapweasels, omnipotent+poobah, bring+it+on[/tag]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 25 Responses to “Creationism v. Evolution, You’re Both Right”

  2. By liberal vet on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    Oh ya why would an omniscient, omnipotent omnipresent being steal Rigel 9 from Star Trek you fake god! How do I know? Because I am god, dam it bonehead homo sapiens.

  3. By liberal vet on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    Oh ya why would an omniscient, omnipotent omnipresent being steal Rigel 9 from Star Trek you fake god! How do I know? Because I am god, dam it bonehead homo sapiens.  Should of stuck with homo hoblis or those hobit like critters, far more fun, they are. LV

  4. By liberal vet on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    oops god not so good with fancy technology.

  5. By Dusty on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    Sweet Jesus in a couldn’t find another ‘chuck’ to use as an example? Lord have mercy dude..I am going to have nightmares now. I think that fat bastard is breaking one of the cardinal rules of christianity..something about sloth, I dunno..I think my retinas are burning..gotta go. :P

  6. By tos on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    You know what cracks me up,how you call this “bickering” when 80% of Americans are Christians and alot of them have had these beliefs for hundreds of years and now you want them to stop believing?

    If people want to believe it why can’t you leave it alone? It appears the bickering is on the other shoe.

    If you want to change a whole religion to suit you then you should be attacking all religions or just STOP BICKERING.

  7. By Jet Netwal on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply


    Why are readers on this blog and satire such a train wreck? Sigh.

  8. By Dusty on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    Interesting isn’t it Jet? :P

  9. By Jet Netwal on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    Indeed. Speaking of train wrecks, Poob, that pigeon toed, knock kneed, dun-lapped over Chuck doesn’t bode well for survival of the species. And the jumbo fig leaf? Sorry OP, I’m not buying it. Seriously. WTF?

  10. By Dr. Forbush on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    tos wrote:  “If people want to believe it why can’t you leave it alone?”

    It wouldn’t be a problem if their misconceptions didn’t effect the rest of society. If they kept their misconceptions to themselves, they would eventually die out. But, they poison the minds of their children with these lies and then we end up invading countries for revenge or worse. On a practical point, if we let them continue their misconceptions then we would have to sacrifice the lives of all the people that will be saved by stem cell research when it finally pays off. But, stem cell research isn’t the only victim. In fact, if these lies and misconceptions continue we will gradually fade into the dark ages once again where religion has all the answers and it is a sin to question them. No one will be willing to take the risks of research when we already know the outcome. Why waste the money?  


  11. By liberal vet on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    My inner god tells me this was funny. The condition of our world is sufficiently poor and we have no one to blame but ourselves. Ain’t no heaven ain’t no hell, plenty of religious perverts though.

  12. By tos on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    Doc-Stem cell reseach is not banned for one. So ESC research is not goverment funded. You always seem to leave out the prefix to things like Stem Cell Research you leave out “Embyrotic” or “Immigrants” you leave out the word “Illegal”. So to generalize Stem Cell Research is misleading. Like the papers print “Bush won’t fund stem cell research” making the general public think it’s banned.

    And when in this century do you have proof we went to war based on a religion? We don’t worship Allah,remember?

    So you want no religious freedom for the citizens? You want people to follow only your beliefs? Isn’t that called suppression? Are you saying America is in the dark ages? I don’t know but look around your home and tell me how dark your life is.

  13. By christopher Radulich on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply


     A. This was suppose to be funny. Can’t take a joke?

    B. If you don’t support stem cell no one is forcing you to use it.

     C. Why do Christians fear death so? If you believe you are a good christian and are going to heaven why do you want to thwart Gods plans. Stop taking all medication and having surgeries. Since God created you and all other things, why would you thwart his plans? The microbes were created to kill people.

  14. By Omnipotent Poobah on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply


    Yeah, I have problems with technology too. That wheel thingee gives me fits.

    Dusty & Jet,

    DOUBLE STANDARD! DOUBLE STANDARD! Neither of you mentioned  Marjorie’s less than perfect physical condition…and the fig leaf was genetically enhanced.


    I have never said anyone should stop believing anything. You can believe anything you like. I personally don’t believe in any religions and that’s my perogative. You seem to believe that Islam is contemptable and you can say that as often as you like too.

    I’m afraid if I stopped talking about anything you didn’t like, I would be a very quiet Poobah indeed…and THAT is what I would find intolerable.

    Doc F,

    You’re a man of science and I reckon these types of exchanges must drive you batty. But I have to give you props…you show remarkable restraint in your comment.

    To All,

    The end of another day and our happy little planet is again at odds. I guess my work of spreading mirth and mayhem is done for now. I must be moving on to other planets…I have Rigel 9 on the schedule in a half-hour.

    Bon Soir everyone…even you too my little Tosker.



  15. By tos on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    Okay Pooey so it was a joke. I just can’t help myself sometimes.

    And Chris where do you see that I said I didn’t support Stem Cell Research? Thanks for putting words in my mouth though.


  16. By Dusty on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    The Poobah has, as to the double standard..dude..the guy is flat out nasty looking..and as Jet pointed out..won’t be long for this earth and will be meeting his maker quicker than she doesn’t have the ‘over-hang’ thang going on Poobie.  :P

  17. By Jet Netwal on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    I’ve got two words for you OP, “Ruebenesque” and “Gluttony”. Only one is used to describe beauty.


  18. By Dr. Forbush on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    tos said: “Stem cell reseach is not banned for one.”

    That is of course a mere technicality. The reason that the fundies and conservative Christians don’t like embryonic stem cell research is because they believe that killing a fertalized egg is murder. But, what is the initial cell? It is technically a stem cell. When you clone anything, what do you do first? You try to create a stem cell from the initial cell. Why a stem cell? Because, the “magic” property of a stem cell is that they can turn into what ever cell they are coaxed into becoming by the environment that they occupy. So, any stem cell has the potential of becoming a human being through cloning. Therefore if the Christians actually learned any science they would want to ban any type of research on stem cells. But, if they remain one step removed from reason some types of stem cell research will remain legal.


  19. By Dusty on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    Thats it Jet!!!! Gluttony is a sin ain’t it? And Rubenesque is a great way to describe the ‘eve’. :)

    **high fives Jet** 

  20. By steve on Mar 16, 2007 | Reply

    Dude…someone break out the flour….

  21. By Lazy Iguana on Mar 16, 2007 | Reply

    Thanks for the Haggard link. That was pretty good. 

    By the way, God did not steal Rigel 9 from Star Trek. Star Trek stole it from God. But it was OK because God’s copyright expired thousands of years ago. So it is public domain now. A supreme being who steals MP3s will not care anyway.

  22. By Jersey McJones on Mar 16, 2007 | Reply

    Tos, reality must be a hard pill for you to swallow, huh?

    “Stem cell reseach is not banned for one. ”

    Yes, genius, we know.  But the funding from the government is always vital to early, expensive research.  And private labs, let alone universities, all over the country get government money all the time - including Big Pharma - and they can’t get any of that money if ESCR is going on anywhere in their lab, regardless of whatever else they’re working on.  Obviously, you are just too fuckin clueless to finally get it through your skull that the ESCR funding ban is effectively a BAN ON THE FUCKIN RESEARCH.  When the hell are you finally going to understand that???


  23. By Jet Netwal on Mar 16, 2007 | Reply


    It’s way too early to be livid. Where’s my tea…

  24. By Omnipotent Poobah on Mar 16, 2007 | Reply

    Jet and Dusty,

    OK, I concede. I’m just mad because it’s really a picture of me.

  25. By tos on Mar 16, 2007 | Reply

    “ Obviously, you are just too fuckin clueless to finally get it through your skull that the ESCR funding ban is effectively a BAN ON THE FUCKIN RESEARCH.  When the hell are you finally going to understand that???”

    Just because you feel it should move froward doesn’t make it so JMJ. I am merely saying that ESCR is far reaching at this point and when used they cannot stop the ESC from regenerating which makes the existing condition worse or cause larger problems. Why  is it so important to you to harvest embryos? Some people have different feelings about it than you although you think it’s okay because that’s your opinion. But there are 2 sides not just yours. I am merely speaking for others as you are for your side of the debate.

  26. By Jersey McJones on Mar 16, 2007 | Reply

    Tos, the promise of ESCR is broad, specific, and unique - and we DO NOT have to “harvest” them, but rather simply ask people to donate them of their own accord.  And really, it should not even be called “embryonic” stem cell research, but instead it should be Blastocyst Research.  Now, of course, there are some people who would demean the definition human life down to a hundred or so cells, but I don’t care about that.  It’s stupid and pointless.  The promise of the research, the only thing I care about in this instance, is in the pluripotentcy, combatability, derivatibility and rejection.  In a variety of ways, all of these promises separate ESC’s from adult stem cells.  For example, a stem cell taken from a genetically corrupted immune system may not be all that useful as therapy for that system, but an ESC in storage, processed through therapeutic cloning, may well have the promise to fix that system.  Simple exmaple, yes, but it gets to one of the differences.  There are many, many others you can find if you bother to look. 

    This is a science in it’s infancy.  It will be quite a while before any of the promises are met, though surely at least some of the promises will come true, let alone what we don’t see coming.  Yes. there will be problems to overcome, but only further research can mitigate problems.  This is a complex scientific investigation.  It will take a long time to produce therapeutic results, though the peripheral science to emerge from this will be seen sooner, and has already.  Most all such research - research that leads to just about every modern amenity and medicine around us - recieves, at least in part or indirectly, government research funds and is therefore subject to government regulatory authority.  This is a good thing.  We need medicine and amenities and the free market is often skiddish about jumping into things too soon - unless, of course, the government is willing to back it, which it often does.  Research can be expensive and dynamic, and many of the lines of inquiry from the initial research base often lead to nowhere.  The free market prefers to know exactly where it’s going.  Resaerch, by definition, assumes that it has no idea.  (And religion thinks it’s already there;)

    The ability to regulate scientific activity is probably the most important reason for government funding of certain research, especially research that we know is going on anyway.  We don’t want “Island of Dr Moreau”-type situations going on out there.  Having the government involoved helps to hedge against that.

    I could go on and on, but simply said - we need government funding of ESCR because we need the research, it has unique potential that no other line of inquiry has, and we need the government to keep an eye on the reseacrh to make sure it isn’t in the wrong hands.


Post a Comment