Skip posted Entry 2258 on May 3, 2006 02:25 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2253

Okay, I fully admit that in the larger context of the creationism/evolution controversy this might seem a pretty small quibble, but I think it is revealing that creationists seem to have a real problem with biological structures that we among the laypeople might refer to as boobies, beavers, and the weenus. (I’m particularly fond of the term ‘weenus’, having first come across it in Frank Zappa’s autobiography, a truly interesting read.)

Answers in Genesis recently did their usual blathering while critiquing Chicago’s Field Museum’s new exhibit, Evolving Planet. I won’t go into any of their usual silliness; you can read it for yourself here.

They show images of many of the displays, each with a link to a larger view. Except that, and this is the funny thing, the second to the last one does not have such a link. It happens to be an image of what a female Australopithecine might have looked like in the flesh. It’s pretty obvious this was not just a misstep on the part of the web content administrator. No, you can’t link to a larger picture of Lucy because she has boobies.

According to AiG President Ken Ham, “We didn’t link to a larger view because boobies aren’t biblical. I mean, they may be mentioned in there somewhere, I haven’t really done a text search or anything, but murder is in the Bible too, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay. So even if boobies are in the Bible we still shouldn’t look at them or acknowledge they exist. Unless it’s between a married man and woman in the privacy of their own bedroom… with the lights off… and only if they’re trying to make a baby.”

Okay, Ham didn’t really say that, at least not that I know of. But I can’t imagine any explanation that would be any less absurd.

But what the heck are they afraid of here? Are they concerned that adolescent Christian boys are going to get turned on by a picture of an Australopithecine and immediately go for their weenus? I can’t think of a better argument for comprehensive sex education!

LITTLE BOBBY: (in his sex education class): Mrs. Vanderhorn, would sex with an Australopithecine be okay?
MRS. VANDERHORN: My God, Bobby, you are sick! Get out of my class before I call security.
LITTLE BOBBY: (sheepishly, standing to leave the classroom.) Sorry, Mrs. Vanderhorn.

If this were an isolated incident, I’d probably not have given it much thought. But take, for example, the creationist book Body by Design, which purports to “define the basic anatomy and physiology in each of the 11 body systems from a creationist viewpoint.”

Now I’ve flipped through this book before, and it’s nicely done with quality illustrations even if the text is standard creo claptrap. But once you come to those typical kind of images of the human body with all the muscles and tissues and gooey stuff showing you realize these Barbie doll smooth individuals have no genitalia!

So what the hell are they? Male… female… Boy George? (I’m a Culture Club fan and I think the boy is dreamy, so please, no flame emails calling me intolerant.)

How are kids supposed to react to this supposed textbook when they see these pictures and then look at themselves in the mirror? What if little Bobby gets all freaked out because he’s got this thing between his legs that the book says he shouldn’t, so while his parents sleep he grabs a butcher knife and sets himself up for a career as a castrato?

What better way to tell children their bodies are dirty and nasty than to pretend parts of them don’t exist? Now that I think of it, I guess creationists do that with their brains on a pretty regular basis.

In the interest of clarity, I’ve gone ahead and added some minor edits to the description of Body by Design from the ICR web site, which I will be forwarding to them for their consideration. Now I was very careful to make sure my edits blend in with the ICR’s text as seamlessly as possible, so go ahead and see how many of my additional edits you can spot. I think you’ll find it quite challenging.

Body By Design
by Alan Gillen

Body by Design defines the basic anatomy and physiology in each of the 11 body systems from a creational viewpoint (except the weenus). Every chapter explores the wonder, beauty and creation of the human body (except the weenus), giving evidence for creation, while exposing faulty evolutionistic reasoning.

Special explorations into each body system (except the weenus) look closely at disease aspects, current events and discoveries, while profiling the classic and contemporary scientists and physicians who have made remarkable breakthroughs in studies of the different areas of the human body (except the weenus).

Body by Design is an ideal textbook for Christian high school or college students as it utilizes tables, graphs, focus sections, diagrams, and illustrations to provide clear examples and explanations of the ideas presented (except the weenus) . Questions at the end of each chapter challenge the student to think through the evidence presented (and to not think about the weenus).

Dr. Alan Gillen is a biologist and zoologist with a doctorate in Science Education. Having taught biology for two decades at all grade levels, Dr. Gillen is presently a professor at Pensecola Christian College in Florida. (He reportedly has no weenus.)

I think the ICR will be thrilled to add adopt my revisions. Don’t you?

In closing, however, I think this does reveal a common thread that runs through all creationist thinking. If anything comes up that makes you feel uncomfortable, no matter how well supported by evidence and accepted by an overwhelming number of scientists, just pretend it doesn’t exist.

And that goes double for boobies, beavers, and the weenus.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #99916

Posted by Jason on May 4, 2006 2:12 PM (e)

See, the Intelligent Designer of the body is the Christian God.
BUT! The Intelligent Designer of the weenus, beaver, and boobies is most definitely Satan. (forgive my lack of a church lady mimic)

Comment #99917

Posted by bigdumbchimp on May 4, 2006 2:19 PM (e)

I think this is my favorite post I’ve read on any blog this week.

Not only do we get a big picture of Zappa but we get multiple uses of weenus, beavers, and some great observations of creationists and then this quote:

What better way to tell children their bodies are dirty and nasty than to pretend parts of them don’t exist? Now that I think of it, I guess creationists do that with their brains on a pretty regular basis.

Comment #99918

Posted by Skip Evans on May 4, 2006 2:20 PM (e)

Well, that would explain all that dry humping in the Garden of Eden. Boobies, beavers and the weenus didn’t exist until after the fall. Just like a carnivorous T. Rex.

Note to self: Email Ken Ham and ask him if the above is correct.

Comment #99920

Posted by K.E. on May 4, 2006 2:29 PM (e)

I blame it all on the Pagans.
They should have put up a better fight.

Comment #99921

Posted by Chuck the Lucky on May 4, 2006 2:30 PM (e)

If they mention the weenus they would have to explain why God keeps changing his mind on the proper appearance. Foreskins are okay at first, then they need to be hemmed after Abraham, either way after Jesus - foreskins seem to be kind of a problem for God. Best not to bring the subject up or he might change his mind again

Comment #99922

Posted by J-Dog on May 4, 2006 2:42 PM (e)

Skip - Thanks for keeping us abreast of the situation. It is certainly stimulating and a situation that deserves close attention and a firm grasp of the essentials.

Comment #99923

Posted by mark on May 4, 2006 2:45 PM (e)

Does anyone have a copy of the Bible that has an illustration of the “Mountain of Foreskins” (I forget exactly where that tale was told. I think it may have been just a molehill until someone, well,…).

Comment #99924

Posted by Skip Evans on May 4, 2006 2:45 PM (e)

Dear J-Dog,

Down boy! Down! No, stop it! Get off my leg, damn you!

Comment #99926

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 4, 2006 2:59 PM (e)

hmm, is there any way you could work the words:

“Dark, hard, dark rubber wheels”

in your revisions, skip?

Comment #99927

Posted by Leigh Jackson on May 4, 2006 3:15 PM (e)

A weenus-less, beaver-less, boobies-less body might (or might not) take intelligence, but creating beavers and boobies and weenuses - that takes real imagination…

Comment #99928

Posted by Mike Z on May 4, 2006 3:19 PM (e)

Helen Lovejoy against Michelangelo’s David:
“It graphically portrays parts of the human anatomy that (as practical as they may be) are EVIL!”

Comment #99929

Posted by Joe McFaul on May 4, 2006 3:20 PM (e)

I would suggest that the weenus is a very strong candidate for Behe’s IC. Far stronger than a flagella, don’t you think. I wonder when somebody would do the study on the IC aspects of the weenus. After all, what good is half a weenus? Did it just spring forth fully formed?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Comment #99930

Posted by Wheels on May 4, 2006 3:21 PM (e)

I find it interesting that the book is promoted as something that only “high school and college students who are willing to explore the intricacies of human anatomy and physiology in a logical, thought-provoking manner” should read. The quote credited to one Iris Jane Bardella, head of the UPSM Department of Family Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology.
First of all, the manner in which this quote is used makes it seem like an instant trump card as far as the ID movement is concerned. Only logical, thoughtful people can handle the idea that humans are the product of GodDesign. Which immediate raises my supsicion about its original use and context. Could it be that the quote was from a review which concluded that the book didn’t have merit and was instead employing a lot of sophistry to set up a seemingly plausible but vacuous position that only the logical, thoughtful people would be able to discern for what it really is? Or is this a genuine appraisal of the book from somebody who supports the ID movement (or at least the content of the book)?
Google fails to provide me with answers.
Secondly, how logical and thought-provoking can a book on human anatomy and biology be if it displays a sort of willful ignorance or attitude of denial in regards to the reproductive system? Does the textual portion of the book reflect the same sort of reproductivesystemBAD! idea that the sexless images give off? Does it advocate a sort of “Abstinence Only” mindset attitude, i.e. deny modern research and results and supply misinformation and ideological bias? It would certainly be in-line with the typical Creationist methodology.

Comment #99931

Posted by Skip Evans on May 4, 2006 3:32 PM (e)

Unfortunately, I have to confess to not reading the book thoroughly… or even much at all. Flipping through the pages, the only text I came across was standard creo nonsense, all of which I had read countless times before, so I didn’t delve into it. In other words, it was complete rubbish.

However, I can say that anything it said about sex ed could probably be trumped by the segment on the episode of The Simpsons where Bart’s class watches a sex ed video hosted by Troy McClore and starring two bunny rabbits. At the end of the spot, Troy tells the kids from on screen, “Now that you know how to do it, don’t.”

But what we know about sex ed from the Conservative Christian/Creationist crowd, the message is more like “We won’t even tell you how to do it.”

And how successful are such programs? Well, I recently read that of all the kids that take these pledges to obstain from sex umtil marriage, some 85% or more DO have sex before marriage, and because they have no proper sex ed behind them, are three times more likely to have unprotected sex.

That’s why I am encouraging all of you to post a link to my informative little piece on Christian web sites, so we may educate the masses the truth about boobies, beavers, and the weeneus.

Perhaps I’ll get some sort of public service award from the Southern Baptist Convention.

Comment #99932

Posted by ablebody on May 4, 2006 3:35 PM (e)

Oh boy! Tables and graphs! That should force me to use my imagination!
P.S.
Doctorate notwithstanding, they spelled Pensacola wrong.

Comment #99933

Posted by Martin Brazeau on May 4, 2006 3:38 PM (e)

If they start using “weenus”, let’s hope that creationist microbiology books don’t start having one-celled hammond organisms.

Comment #99934

Posted by steve s on May 4, 2006 3:39 PM (e)

As I tool around town past the store, near Southpoint mall, which is labelled FAMILY CHRISTIAN something or other, and seems to be a clearinghouse for all things moral and appropriate, I have to say I chuckle at the fact that I probably couldn’t walk in and buy anything with the Creation of Adam on it. An all-time great piece of art, commissioned by christians for a church, and revered for centuries, is verboten to modern American christians. It would ruin children, don’t you know.

Comment #99935

Posted by CJ O'Brien on May 4, 2006 3:49 PM (e)

Heh.
Reminds me of my favorite Engineer/Creationist joke:

So, three engineers are sitting around, and the mechanical engineer says “God must be a mechanical engineer. Just look at the skeletal system! The intricacy of the joints!”
The electrical engineer says, “No, no. God is definitely an electrical engineer. The nervous system is a simply incredible network. Look at the number of elecrical connections in the brain!
But the civil engineer speaks up, “Well, I know God isn’t a civil engineer. I mean what kind of idiot puts a recreation area in the middle of a waste-processing facility?”

Comment #99936

Posted by Greg Peterson on May 4, 2006 3:55 PM (e)

It’s become such a commonplace that it’s surpassed cliche status, but just in case some poor soul has never seen it before:

What sort of an engineer would put an amusement park so near a waste disposal facility?

Maybe weeni and baginas are just embarrassing because they perform not just one but multiple dirty, sick, disgusting, utterly shameful, and absolutely essential roles. And as noted recently on Pharyngula, hyenas actually give birth through the functional equivalent of a weenus–a clitoris grossly distorted by lots and lots of androgen. Another stroke of brilliant design. Jehovah–short-bus god of foothills.

Comment #99937

Posted by Gerard Harbison on May 4, 2006 4:07 PM (e)

boobies and beavers and weenus

Oh my!

Toto - we’re Not In Kansas Anymore!

Comment #99941

Posted by rossum on May 4, 2006 5:07 PM (e)

A thought. Would AiG have a problem with pictures of a cow’s udders or of a sow suckling her piglets? If animal boobie-equivalents are OK and Australopithecus boobies are not (as with human boobies) then are AiG trying to say that Australopithecines are human? Where do gorilla boobies fit in? What are the implications for creationism if Adam and Eve were Australopiths?

Comment #99945

Posted by Gary Hurd on May 4, 2006 5:33 PM (e)

“Weenus” or “Weenii” has been debated throughout the ages. I see that you favor Prof. Zappa’s interpretation of the ancient scroll work found in a late Babylonian outhouse known as the “the shittery of Nimrod.” The possiblity that the scroll was privily used has not been categorically ruled out however which is why I must reserve judgment.

Boobies and tits are mentioned in the Summerian “grand list of bird calls” and attested biblically as “kinds” or “Barims.” The biblical sources seem to have confused boobies with doves (Song of Soloman) and the mammalian breast. It is not known if this was a transcription error or if Soloman had un-natural desires for birds.

Comment #99946

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on May 4, 2006 5:34 PM (e)

Well, bonobos are clearly not human by cre’ist thinking, but you still never see them in zoos precisely because, unlike their chimpanzee cousins, they have a habit of publicly and unabashedly making use of said anatomical features at any hour of the day.

Comment #99947

Posted by buddha on May 4, 2006 5:37 PM (e)

mark wrote:

Does anyone have a copy of the Bible that has an illustration of the “Mountain of Foreskins” (I forget exactly where that tale was told. I think it may have been just a molehill until someone, well,…)

There are three mass circumcisions in this “god-inspired” pornography: Genesis 34, Joshua 5 and 1 Samuel 18.

Comment #99948

Posted by Stevaroni on May 4, 2006 5:53 PM (e)

Does anyone have a copy of the Bible that has an illustration of the “Mountain of Foreskins”

Seeing as how we’ve drifted way off the usual shipping lanes with this topic already, I feel justified to digress…

Circumcision.

Just what the hell was that all about and just how did the Jews come up in that idea?

OK, people do weird things to themselves - I live down the street from a guy with tattoos on his face - and I imagine this has been going on for a while, so I can see the first guy trying it on himself.

But how did he get the second guy to go along?

I mean these people were nomads in the desert.They had one technology - rocks!

Imagine you’re sitting there sharing a quiet moment with your goats - you wandered in the desert professionally, life back then probably consisted mostly of moments with your goats - and up comes good old crazy Eli, with a slight limp, bloody rock in one hand and phallus parts in the other.

Eli grins gamely though the pain and says “Yo Ishmael! look what I did! Want me to do you too?”

I don’t know about you, but I’m out of there! Forget the damned goats - I’m gonna grab Mister Happy and run!

To this day the only way to get anyone to cooperate is to sneak up on boys and get them when they’re too young to fight back, or the practice would die out overnight -I assure you that’s the only reason they got me, and I know I’m not alone on that.

Somebody enlighten me - how could something like this ever possibly catch on ?

Comment #99949

Posted by steve s on May 4, 2006 5:58 PM (e)

If christianity and islam can catch on, is it that hard to believe that hacking up your penis can catch on?

Comment #99950

Posted by Peter Henderson on May 4, 2006 6:02 PM (e)

There have been several protests in Belfast (usually by the Free Presbyterian Church) outside this organisation’s local centre:

http://www.brook.org.uk/content/M1_gotobrook.asp

A similar kind of attitude to the above I think. I’m sure I remember something about the Free P’s requesting that a nude statue be covered during an art exhibition !

Comment #99951

Posted by David B. Benson on May 4, 2006 6:12 PM (e)

Figleafism. That’s what it is, figleafism…

Comment #99953

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 4, 2006 6:18 PM (e)

Here in Tampa Bay, Florida, there is an exhibit called “Bodies” at a local museum, that consists of various mounted human corpses from China, dissected, that have been plasticized to preserve them.

When it first opened, there was a big brouhaha over it, with some people and local politicos making noises about “the Chinese may not have gotten proper permissions from those people before they died” or somesuch. But no one was fooled — the REAL gripe was that the foaming fundies didn’t want kids looking at some dead Chinese guy’s willie.

What a bunch of tight-asses. Geez.

Comment #99955

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 4, 2006 6:27 PM (e)

Well, bonobos are clearly not human by cre’ist thinking, but you still never see them in zoos precisely because, unlike their chimpanzee cousins, they have a habit of publicly and unabashedly making use of said anatomical features at any hour of the day.

Some of us here are old enough to remember the pre-Mercury Project days of the US space program, when chimps were used as astronaut surrogates to test capsule designs etc. One of these was a chimp named Enos, who, like all the other space chimps, was eagerly trotted out by NASA for lots of photo ops and publicity. Alas, Enos seemed to have a super-duper drive to . . well . . you know, and on one occasion, as the cameras were rolling, he interrupted his scheduled activities to drop his diaper and … well … you know.

The horrified NASA exec’s banished the poor chimp from the press, and he was known ever after as “Enos the Penis”.

True story.

Comment #99965

Posted by the pro from dover on May 4, 2006 8:59 PM (e)

Pat Robertson retrospectively predicted that Frank Zappa would die of prostate cancer since he had “voted god right out of his weenus.”

Comment #99966

Posted by Bone Saw on May 4, 2006 9:05 PM (e)

Frank Zappa? Was he the stupid Beatle?

Comment #99967

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 4, 2006 9:08 PM (e)

Yikes, I spilled a glass of water on myself laughing at that one. you do have some great one-liners from time to time there, pro.

Comment #99969

Posted by Bone Saw on May 4, 2006 9:14 PM (e)

I could have talked about his kid’s stupid names, but I used to think Dweezil was cool.

Comment #99972

Posted by Mike Z on May 4, 2006 9:26 PM (e)

Re: Bonobos
I’m generally not prude, but I must say that when I see documentaries of those folks in their natural habitat, it sure looks like a crazy orgy (the human kind (not that I’ve ever seen one)). When I was teaching high school biology, I always felt a wrench in my stomach when the video on primate social behavior finally got around to the freaky bonobos.

Comment #99977

Posted by Kevin from nyc on May 4, 2006 11:41 PM (e)

The naughty bits are very unChristian and not to be touched or viewed by anybody anytime.

Comment #99979

Posted by Wolfie! on May 5, 2006 12:26 AM (e)

Being embarrassed about willies is a cultural thing.
and because of it bits are left off, not only humans, but anumals.

Cartoon animals, whether it’s Bambi, Spirit or Scooby-doo, who would
normally be hung like horses [and one is, a horse] they’re not.
and this has always struck me as bizzare.

A city kid might be worried about dangly bits, but a country kid
rarely is… it’s how one tells a stallion from a mare.

I often wonder if it was the nose, rather than the penis.
TV would be very odd, people sitting around with a nose cover,
cartoon animals with no noses [no scooby sniffing out criminals,
that’d be x-rated, right?].

yeah, silly.

There’s a group of emerging cartoonists calling themselves furries
who are putting it all back on.

Wolfie!

Comment #99980

Posted by Registered User on May 5, 2006 12:44 AM (e)

Some of us here are old enough to remember the pre-Mercury Project days of the US space program, when chimps were used as astronaut surrogates to test capsule designs etc.

Speaking of chimps and private parts, there is a bit on Negativland’s latest CD (a double CD actually) where they shave a chimp (on the radio) for the purpose of showing “for the first time” how unbelievably human a naked chimp looks, thus proving our undeniably close relationship to them.

In this case, they shave the chimp completely except for some “hair on the top of the head.”

It’s a female chimp.

Named “Cherry.”

Comment #99981

Posted by K.E. on May 5, 2006 1:04 AM (e)

Oh well, while we’re on the subject, don’t forget the medieval Christian talismans equating a church with a vulva. Actually a talisman against evil.
look up Sheela Na-gig and related symbology.
Not to mention the Kali cults in India.
Then there is the hermaphrodite Buddha statues going back to almost a 1000 years BCE and early christian trinity derived (evolved?)from the the Greek Hermetic Apollo cult’s
http://evocc.com/

The male initiation ceremonies of some of the Aboriginal tribes in Australia involved the process of cutting the skin between the penis and the anus as a symbolic vagina semiotically binding the boy into manhood and unity with the female and oneness with nature only then allowing him to take a wife.

The process of circumcision is the symbolic blood sacrifice to the gods(society actually) in exchange for protection from the ancestors and a way of society (at the time) telling that BOY he was ready to take a wife and the pain is a deliberate imposition by the tribe as a demand childhood is officially over …..welcome to the REAL world sucker.

Another ceremony was ritually removing one of the front teeth with a bone spat out by a god father after he had danced himself into a trance reported by the early english settlers in Australia around 1790’s. In Hindu Bali (still today) the initiate has the tops of their front teeth filed down to symbolize the end of childhood.(Boy you would never forget that)

A great number of these ancient ceremonies involved the use of psychedelic plant extracts that essentially ‘woke up’ the iniate to his own insignificant self in the universe at least within the tribes horizon.

Comment #99983

Posted by Keith on May 5, 2006 1:19 AM (e)

There’s a wonderful picture of a mountain of foreskins in The Brick Testament’s version of Joshua 5. I can hertily recommend the whole site as an antidote to Chick Tracts. I’ve still not worked out if it’s serious or humorous…

Comment #99985

Posted by K.E. on May 5, 2006 1:58 AM (e)

Keith humorous or not it IS real. Indoctrinate the followers and exclude the other. The followers give up their ability to react against authority of the Tribe as a cheap cost for the protection of the power holders in the group, in the old days priests and kings, today the media and the powers that be, no questions asked or its off to the gulags or early retirement with no pension, make all outsiders the potential subjects for a Holocaust if they do not submit to the haves who want to have more. The usual OT stuff.
Except that form of propaganda still works today and “penetrates electronically”. . The weenus is programmed for tribal survival and domination and has no conscience.

Comment #99986

Posted by K.E. on May 5, 2006 2:01 AM (e)

As Voltaire put it: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

Comment #99988

Posted by Anthony Kerr on May 5, 2006 4:48 AM (e)

Oh if only creationionists didn’t have those bits they hate so much….wishful thinking, but unfortunately, just like creationism itself, that won’t make it so.

Comment #99989

Posted by Frank J on May 5, 2006 5:09 AM (e)

OT, but related:

While I have no problem with public displays of the Ten Commandments, I am not one of those who rabidly defend it on a narrow interpretation of the Constitution. Yet, ironically it is those who do who have the most reason to object to the public display:

LITTLE BOBBY: Mrs. Vanderhorn, what’s “adultery”?

Comment #99990

Posted by Gil Gaudia on May 5, 2006 7:02 AM (e)

Here is some Biblical analysis from a writer friend of mine.

Exodus Chapter 33:17-23 says,

“And the LORD said unto Moses, I will
do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou
hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.

18 And he (Moses) said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.

19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before
thee, and I will proclaim the name
of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I
will be gracious, and will shew
mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there
shall no man see me, and live.

21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me,
and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth
by, that I will put thee in a clift of the
rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see
my back parts: but my face shall not
be seen.

In this story, Moses, after pointing out how much he has done
for God, insists that he ought to be allowed to see God,
not only for his own sake, but for the Israelites as well. God tells him
that no one can look upon God’s face and live, but he
would allow him a glimpse of God’s glory. So God shelters Moses in a
cleft in the rock, covers him with a divine hand, and
after passing by, allows Moses to look at God’s backside. I have always
dreamed of actually basing a message on that passage
and calling it “Beholding the Backside of God.” Maybe someday I shall;
but not today. But the fact is: that story is based on the
old Hebrew theology that envisioned God as actually being in humanoid
form, and that literally gave God a face – as well as,
apparently, a behind! Well, whatever else I’ll be doing this morning, I
won’t be speaking of God’s “face” or “faces” in any
literal or anthropomorphic sense.

So it’s back parts. Was God showing his robe and the back of his head,
heel and sandals or did he show his parts, that is to say, head, back,
rump, wedding tackle, legs, calves, heel?
Is this happy horse shit or what?
On reflection, “show me thy glory “ probably means let’s have a peek
at your wanger and god shew him and yea verily his glory swung low like
a valparaiso jackass.
And if God streaks Moses, who are we to swoon at a glimpse of JJ’s
breast?

Comment #99992

Posted by Morgan-LynnLamberth on May 5, 2006 8:12 AM (e)

There you have it:creationists tell all those whoppers so that in the end children will not learn about sex.They lie in order to protect morality ,which in the end turns out to be mainly about sex.They should enocurage masturbation, if they want to discourage sexual intercourse.They should contraception if they want to discourage abortion.They should encourage truth telling ,but then they would not be creationists.

Comment #99993

Posted by Raging Bee on May 5, 2006 8:17 AM (e)

I agree with J-Dog: we need to have a long hard look at such matters. A penetrating analysis is long overdue here.

Did it just spring forth fully formed?

Mine has a tendency to do that, at which point it can become ireducable (though not very complex).

Comment #99995

Posted by Skip Evans on May 5, 2006 9:24 AM (e)

Wow people. What an interesting exchange of comments. I must admit that when writing this post I was a bit concerned about the kinds of comments it would inspire. But I have to say I found the dialogue most interesting.

The word ‘weenus’ has, as of this post, appeared in the comments 16 times if I count correctly. I think ol’ Frank is looking down on us from Heaven, sitting next to Jesus because the Son of God knows kick ass guitar solos when he hears them, and smiling.

We’ve also in this thread covered a wide range of weenus-related topics: masturbating chimps, circumcision, cartoons sans the weenus, and even an interesting post discussing a biblical passage wherein God won’t show his face to Moses, but instead says, “Moses, check out my heavenly weenus.”

What the hell is up with that? You can’t see God’s face but he’ll show you his dingus? That’s like a chick who won’t kiss during sex because she’s saving that for her boyfriend, for crying out loud.

Now wonder I’m not a creationist. I’ll never undersand religion.

Comment #99996

Posted by ben on May 5, 2006 9:24 AM (e)

Frank Zappa? Was he the stupid Beatle?

No, that was Paul McCartney. Oh, nevermind, I thought you said insipid.

Comment #99998

Posted by Keith Douglas on May 5, 2006 9:39 AM (e)

Stevaroni: I don’t know the answer to your question, but mutilating the genitals is found world wide. Think of those groups that stick bones and sticks through various parts …

Comment #99999

Posted by Edin Najetovic on May 5, 2006 9:41 AM (e)

Not knowing whether anyone really wants to know, I can tell you that circumcision is a practice probably originally born out of need for better hygiene. In the hot sweltering desert there is little opportunity for good cleaning of the penis, so it quickly becomes a smelly heap of smegma and infection. Not quite something to look forward to, so most desert cultures practice some form of circumcision (to my knowledge).

Comment #100000

Posted by ben on May 5, 2006 10:01 AM (e)

Comment 100,000! What do I win?

Comment #100001

Posted by roophy on May 5, 2006 10:04 AM (e)

Raging Bee wrote:

A penetrating analysis is long overdue here.

I couldn’t agree more: analysis followed by rectification!

Comment #100002

Posted by mark on May 5, 2006 10:31 AM (e)

After all, what good is half a weenus?

Joe, do you mean a hemiweenes? Are snakes more intelligently designed than humans?

Comment #100003

Posted by Skip Evans on May 5, 2006 10:54 AM (e)

Update on Lucy’s Boobies and AiG

After reading the AiG post, and realizing the Lucy image was the only one not linking to a larger view, I emailed AiG to point out the oversight.

Today I received an email from them explaining that the missing link (he he, pun intended) was indeed intentional, because some people might find a eyeball full of Australopithecine knockers offensive.

I find this most interesting. After all, creationists claim that Lucy was not human, and some, like Kent “I’m completely insane” Hovind says she was nothing more than a chimpanzee.

That being the case, why would a larger image of her be offensive? We see pictures of naked chimps, gorillas and orangutans all the time, and I don’t hear anyone clamoring about pornography.

Or could it just be that creos know there is more to Lucy’s fine bod than meets their sinful eyes? Oh, ye lustful beasts!

Comment #100004

Posted by Just Bob on May 5, 2006 10:56 AM (e)

“In our image”
That’s how God made man, according to Genesis, and therefore according to creationists. But every moderately bright 8-year-old immediately comes up with two questions which are never satisfactorily answered. If any answers are offered, they are usually cobbled-up rationalizations from outside the Bible. Generally, the kid gets the message that he’s better off not asking such things.

The first is whom the One and Only God meant by “our”–but that’s really a theological question, not related directly to creationism. The second question, however, is right on target: If man was made “in [God’s] image,” then Adam must have looked just like God–right? But wait–it gets more confusing. Man is immediately referred to as “them,” so maybe it’s not just Adam who looks like God. Then to further confound literal-minded youngsters, “..in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” If God is male (the assumption of 97.83% of all creationists), then how could a female be made in His image?

Let’s grant the general creationist assumptions (correct me if I’m wrong): God is male; men are made “in [His] image” in only a general way (maybe even Adam didn’t look exactly like Him); and women were made with necessary differences to enable reproduction. Still a load of embarrassing questions arise. Much has been made of Adam’s navel, and why he would have one, having never been attached to a placenta. I want to know if God has one. I want to know if He has a digestive tract. If so, why? Does He eat? If so, what, and why would He need to? Does He excrete? Where? What happens to it? Does He have lungs? Why would He need them? Does He have sweat glands? And naughty stuff: does He have genitals? Why would He need those? (And that nasty Paul Yost wants to know if He is circumcised! I figure He is, since He ordered his chosen people to be, presumably to make them more like their God. So who did it?) Does He even have two legs, and feet, and toes? Why would He need them, unless He’s bound by gravity, as we are?

Childish questions? Of course, but only because they arise from a literal (i.e., childish) reading of Genesis. But the point is profound: either God has human-like organs and glands and body parts, or He doesn’t. If He does, why, and what does He use them for? If He doesn’t, then made “in [His] image” has no literal meaning. (For those creationists tempted to inform me that the human soul was what was made in God’s image, let me save you the trouble and thank you ahead of time for backing up my point: the phrase has no literal [physical] meaning. I would point out that a great many generations of Judaeo-Christians have taken the phrase to mean physical resemblance, and that most fundamentalist believers still do. Ever see a painting that showed God with anything but a human form? Let me also direct you to the section of Exodus wherein Moses is covered with God’s hand, and then allowed to view His backside. Note also numerous other biblical references to God’s hands, face, and other apparently human-like body parts. One of my favorites is Jacob’s wrestling match with God, in which Jacob didn’t recognize the Lord of All Creation until later, and God couldn’t win until He cheated by using magic!)

From Things Creationists Hate

Comment #100005

Posted by Peter Henderson on May 5, 2006 11:09 AM (e)

Re. comments #99966 and #99996: The stupid beetle was of course Pete Best who left them before they became famous. A decision which I’m sure he’s regretted for the rest of his life. He must continually say to himself “What did I do that for”

Comment #100007

Posted by K.E. on May 5, 2006 11:45 AM (e)

Edin Najetovic your comment about dessert circumcision may have an element of truth, a bit like the religious ban on eating certain meats (the Hindus with the cow) but it doesn’t explain female circumcision. That is; the radical change to the child’s body to initiate them into adulthood, a quid pro quo exchange of childhood for adulthood, dependence to responsibility and of course practiced by the analog of priests from prehistoric beginnings.

Comment #100009

Posted by mark on May 5, 2006 12:01 PM (e)

dessert circumcision?

Some reward for eating all my vegetables!

Comment #100010

Posted by Edin Najetovic on May 5, 2006 1:08 PM (e)

Yes, female circumcision is something of a perverse oddity to say the least. It may have arisen by analogy, or the more extreme and rather nasty ‘sew everything up’ variant may have been a ways of ensuring virginity up to marriage. Hard to say with this barbaric custom.

Comment #100011

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson on May 5, 2006 1:24 PM (e)

“In the hot sweltering desert there is little opportunity for good cleaning of the penis, so it quickly becomes a smelly heap of smegma and infection.”

I smell a fabrication. Can you substantiate that? There are after all a usually antibacterial cleaning fluid close at hand. (Weak pun intended.)

Comment #100012

Posted by Genotypical on May 5, 2006 1:33 PM (e)

Actually, those wild, sexy bonobos are on display at some U.S. zoos–about ten North American zoos have bonobos, according to their Species Survival Plan. I have seen nonplussed parents in front of the bonobo display at the Cincinnati Zoo trying to deal with questions of the “Mommy, what are they doing?” genre. For you parents of four-year-olds out there, “Wrestling” or “Playing” seem to be satisfactory answers.

Comment #100014

Posted by Chili Pepper on May 5, 2006 2:08 PM (e)

“LITTLE BOBBY: Mrs. Vanderhorn, what’s “adultery”? “

When I was a kid, growing up in a Catholic grade school, we learned the Ten Commandments.

Everything was going swimmingly until we got to “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” First time I ever saw a teacher blush - she immediately skipped over to the next one. For the longest time, I wondered if it was a sin to become an adult.

Comment #100015

Posted by Steuard on May 5, 2006 2:16 PM (e)

In my sister’s high school biology class (which also featured “teach the controversy”, more or less), she was asked at one point to fill in a worksheet about the female reproductive system. There were blank lines pointing to all the major components, but the line pointing to the clitoris was labeled “omit”.

When the exam came, she and some friends decided to fill in that line as “omitoris (‘omit’ for short)”.

Comment #100016

Posted by AC on May 5, 2006 2:17 PM (e)

Skip Evans wrote:

Today I received an email from them explaining that the missing link (he he, pun intended) was indeed intentional, because some people might find a eyeball full of Australopithecine knockers offensive.

Imagine how screwed up a person has to be before they are offended by bare humanoid mammaries. I pity the victims of such brainwashing up to the point that they themselves become perpetrators of it.

Comment #100018

Posted by R. M. on May 5, 2006 2:55 PM (e)

A few years ago, I read a book by Jared Diamond called “Why is sex fun? The evolution of human sexuality”. It had the title in black on black so you could read it on the bus without drawing attention. Diamond points out that man, in contrast to other animals, keeps sexual activity secret, and tries to show why this is advantageous from an evolutionary point of view.

Being a non-native English speaker, I find the current discussion a little bewildering (not much really) because it uses words which I didn’t learn in school and, which I don’t find in my dictionaries.

Even if I too smile at some of the attempts not to use sexually loaded words I would think this is part of human nature and not restricted to bigoted fundamentalists.

Comment #100019

Posted by Mumon on May 5, 2006 3:12 PM (e)

Mmmmm….cruncy post-modern goodness! Either Lucy is a human or she isn’t. If she isn’t what’s the big deal about showing her nekkid? And if she’s human, then she must be a transitional form.

And anyway, it’s just a damned artist’s conception of a Lucy; no more sexually arousing than the image of justice that gave John Ashcroft such woodies he had to ensrhoud her.

Nice.

Comment #100020

Posted by Leon on May 5, 2006 3:20 PM (e)

[i]With the lights off[/i]…Good one, Skip! I love it.

Comment #100021

Posted by anonymous, please on May 5, 2006 4:31 PM (e)

And the funny thing is, the Lucy really isn’t that well-endowed. Looks kind of butch, really. I think Gov. Arnold has bigger breasts than that.

Comment #100022

Posted by C.J.Colucci on May 5, 2006 4:34 PM (e)

Punch Line (Can you fill in the rest of the joke?)

Retiring Mohel: “50 years of dedicated service and all I get for a retirement present is a lousy wallet?”

Congregation Leader: “Oh, no. If you rub it, you’ll have a set of luggage.”

Comment #100023

Posted by mike on May 5, 2006 4:35 PM (e)

When I went to church run elementary school, we never studied the good parts of the bible:

Your navel is a rounded goblet
that never lacks blended wine.
Your waist is a mound of wheat
encircled by lilies.

Your breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle.

Makes you want to give a gazelle a pearl necklace, no?

Comment #100025

Posted by Rieux on May 5, 2006 4:40 PM (e)

Peter Henderson wrote:

The stupid beetle was of course Pete Best who left them before they became famous. A decision which I’m sure he’s regretted for the rest of his life. He must continually say to himself “What did I do that for”

Pete Best didn’t leave the Beatles voluntarily. He was thrown out by the other three on the advice of a record producer who thought Best was a lousy drummer.

John, Paul and George were, of course, being weenuses.

Comment #100030

Posted by owlbear1 on May 5, 2006 5:25 PM (e)

The whole title of that book is:

“Body by Design, Fearfully and Wonderfully made.”

What the Fuck?

Fearfully?

Comment #100031

Posted by Skip Evans on May 5, 2006 5:35 PM (e)

Fearfully… sure. You’ve never seen boobies, beavers or a weenus that made you scared? I know I have!

Comment #100036

Posted by Joe McFaul on May 5, 2006 6:03 PM (e)

Joe, do you mean a hemiweenes? Are snakes more intelligently designed than humans?

Obviously! If I was dragging my weenus around in the hot sand and over sharp gravel, I’d develop a hemiweenus, too!

Seriously, I ask all ID propoents if the rattlesnake fang system is “IC” and why or why not. Now, I’ll follow up with the rattlesnake hemiweenus.

Where’s Behe when you need him?

Comment #100037

Posted by Stevaroni on May 5, 2006 6:12 PM (e)

The aversion to all things naked is seems to be a particularly American thing.

I has a perfectly normal adolescence in the States, in a culture that (IIRC) was not any less saturated with sex than it is now.

I had, I assure you, a reasonably complete working knowledge of the bumpy bits that lurked under clothes.

And still, the beaches of Europe and Australia (Mmmm, Australia…) were still a complete revelation. Freaked me the hell out.

It took me a while to figure out just what was bugging me about all these naked people, and it was that they were just naked. There wasn’t any (well there wasn’t much) of a sexual overtone to it at all, and that felt weird.

To this day, when I pass a woman nursing in public a little twinge of impropriety runs through me, till I force myself to think “No dumbass!” That’s what she’s supposed to do with those things.

Comment #100038

Posted by Steviepinhead on May 5, 2006 6:16 PM (e)

A Glossary for those who were not reared to speak the American-ese dialects of English:

boobies: pl. n. Usage: Coll. bilaterally-paired female hominid secondary sexual characteristics, located on the anterior upper torso. Also a number of related species of water fowl.

beaver: n. Usage: mildly vulg. female hominid secondary sexual characteristic, located at the (anterior) parting of the legs. Technically refers only to the follicular “foilage” naturally occurring there following puberty, but extended to include the external manifestations of the primary female sexual organs. Also a species of industrious, lake-dwelling, herbivorous mammal.

weenus: n. Usage: Coll. the external manifestation of the male hominid’s primary sexual organs, located in roughly the same place as the feminine foilage described above. No mammalian or avian species are known by the same term, but adolescent males (and adult–though not necessarily mature–scientists) of both genders are diligently searching for an appropriate candidate species.

Comment #100039

Posted by KL on May 5, 2006 6:17 PM (e)

“The aversion to all things naked is seems to be a particularly American thing.”

Yeah, apparently our big uproar over Miss Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the superbowl was the source of laughs overseas. Their take was “what’s the big deal about an exposed breast?”. Our European and Aussie exchange students are floored by our abstinence-only sex “education” and our 21 year drinking age.

Comment #100040

Posted by KL on May 5, 2006 6:20 PM (e)

“A Glossary for those who were not reared to speak the American-ese dialects of English:”

Rumor has it that a fundamentalist parent objected when we said her offspring could not wear a T-shirt that said “save a tree, eat a beaver”. Their objection? “What is objectionable about this shirt?”

Clearly not all Americans know all the slang…

Comment #100042

Posted by Steviepinhead on May 5, 2006 6:30 PM (e)

Hmmm. A misplaced closing parenthesis allowed that last definition to read “adolescent males … of both genders” when it should have read elsewise.

If necessary, of course, a definition could be fabricated for “males of both genders,” but that should probably await a more appropriate post.

Comment #100045

Posted by Julie Stahlhut on May 5, 2006 6:37 PM (e)

The stupid beetle was of course Pete Best …

Actually, the stupid beetle was a Cotinis nidia that buzzed like a giant bumble bee just before it landed on my husband’s neck beside a lake in Tennessee. Fortunately, it picked a pair of antenna-heads (instead of an insectophobe) to annoy, so it got briefly hassled, giggled at, and released instead of being swatted like – well, like a bug.

Comment #100047

Posted by mark on May 5, 2006 6:54 PM (e)

Maybe it was because the grownups were prudish, but as kids we were quite fascinated by all things nude and genital.

Comment #100048

Posted by the pro from dover on May 5, 2006 7:06 PM (e)

it should come as no surprize that those things that fudamentalist Christians are so obsessed about and have their collective undergarments in such a bunch about politically (such as gay rights, stem cells, evolution, health education in public schools and abortion) in the end are all about sex.

Comment #100049

Posted by Parse on May 5, 2006 7:20 PM (e)

Joe McFaul wrote:

Seriously, I ask all ID propoents if the rattlesnake fang system is “IC” and why or why not. Now, I’ll follow up with the rattlesnake hemiweenus.

Where’s Behe when you need him?

Why do you need Behe for this? His answer would be along the lines of “It’s obviously IC. Why? Because! It’s up to you to prove to me that it ISN’T IC. However, whatever proof you have, won’t be enough to prove that it’s not IC.”

Comment #100053

Posted by Edin Najetovic on May 5, 2006 8:38 PM (e)

Pete Best didn’t leave the Beatles voluntarily. He was thrown out by the other three on the advice of a record producer who thought Best was a lousy drummer.

John, Paul and George were, of course, being weenuses.

Pete Best was a shoddy drummer, and Ringo, contrary to popular belief is not bad. I’d have done the same :)

Comment #100055

Posted by Henry J on May 5, 2006 9:45 PM (e)

This reminds me of an article I read a while back explaining the difference in amount of sperm production (relative to size) in gorillas (least), humans (middle), and chimpanzees (most relative to body mass).

Don’t remember though if that article was on this blog or not.

Henry

Comment #100067

Posted by Corkscrew on May 6, 2006 6:02 AM (e)

Henry J: IIRC, it’s to do with promiscuity:

Gorillas live in harems, which means that, even if the females want to “do the rounds” they’re still stuck with that one male.

Humans live in monogamous tribes - so usually you won’t be playing the “whose sperm gets to the egg first” game with other males, but there will be the occasional incident…

Chimpanzees live in polygamous tribes where the females basically attempt to screw every male in the group (so that they all think that they might be the father). As such, the chimp with the most sperm will generally get ahead on the parenthood game.

There’s also an explanation for why all these strategies are good for given situations, but I can’t remember it.

Matt Ridley’s “Red Queen” is absolutely excellent for this stuff.

Comment #100068

Posted by Paul Mannering on May 6, 2006 6:28 AM (e)

New Zealand - sex is legal (hetero or homo) from 16. Drinking is legal from 18. You can drive from 15. Sex Ed is mandatory in state schools (and private schools follow the same core curriculum) its objective, frank and acurate. There is a biological/anatomical unit and a social behaviour type unit - so you get the how you get pregnant, and how to avoid it classes.

I remember years ago (20+) reading Desmond Morris “Zoo Days” with the story of a woman who was intrigued at a chimpanzee hunched over and busy doing something in its crotch. This rather posh lady stood up with a crimson face when she realised that the little begger was giving himself some oral satisfaction.

Comment #100078

Posted by K.E. on May 6, 2006 11:56 AM (e)

“My brain? It’s my second favorite organ.” Woody Allen, Sleeper, 1993

Thanks Mark for pointing out my extra ‘s’ in desert I have no excuses but perhaps the devil made me do it, when thinking of phalli in the dessert(giggle), which would explain why snakes have 2 penes(..true)…from heaven presumably.
Rod Stewart was quoted, when he married that cream of NZ(the land of milk and honey) fecundity Rachel Hunter, that he was ‘happier than a dog with 2 dicks’ now THAT is happy…. or was, in his case, until he found another ..I wonder if she has 2 …oh never mind.
Did you know the blue whale has a bone in his bone, as long as an oar? Check out the Icelandic Phallological Museum (no smart remarks about shrinkage please). Now onto the Fundies and their undies or at least what’s in them.

Envy? Perhaps, but Fundamentalist sexual pathology is a well explored neurosis/psychosis and bares (oops) repeating but first a little puerile fun.
One would almost think that Victorians were responsible for all things puritanical, it seems not
The Lacedaemonian Ambassadors (1896) by Aubrey Beardsley Spartan ambassadors indeed, I could swear one of them looks like a well known telly fundie, the posture/attitude/lacy socks are certainly the same. A short drinking friend of mine once claimed “Big man big weenus,little man ALL weenus” I never was privy to his claim, but the girls only complained when he never paid them enough attention in bed(…erm ….he would wake up and read a book at 3 in the morning) , he was the man most like Socrates I have ever met, a great little thinker but a bugger when he was pissed , some things never change.

And now for some heavy breathing reading
The Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism
By WALTER A. DAVIS

So….considered in all their plurality, is it fair to call them d*ickheads ?

Comment #100080

Posted by K.E. on May 6, 2006 12:22 PM (e)

Dang those Xtians just when you think you have them worked out

For Christian Husbands Only…

Comment #100115

Posted by Henry J on May 6, 2006 5:00 PM (e)

Cork,
Yep, that’s the explanation I recall reading. :)

Henry

Comment #100133

Posted by huxley on May 6, 2006 7:05 PM (e)

How about the poopus?

Comment #100135

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 6, 2006 7:44 PM (e)

There’s also an explanation for why all these strategies are good for given situations, but I can’t remember it.

perhaps you were thinking about sperm competition?

Comment #100140

Posted by Alan Kellogg on May 6, 2006 8:21 PM (e)

So Dr. Gillen has no elbows. You do know what a weenus is, don’t you? :)

A weenus is the rough patch of skin covering the elbow. Which means not only does everybody have a weenus, we have two of them. :D

Comment #100141

Posted by Monado on May 6, 2006 8:37 PM (e)

That would be funnier if my 3rd-year University textbook on human Physiology, c. 1970s at a secular university, had actually covered the fascinating and complex glandular-and-hormonal system of lactation. Can we say, “Women don’t count, kids?”

Comment #100153

Posted by Henry J on May 6, 2006 10:26 PM (e)

Corkscrew,
Re “There’s also an explanation for why all these strategies are good for given situations, but I can’t remember it.”

But I thought “so usually you won’t be playing the “whose sperm gets to the egg first” game with other males,” was the explanation (in shorthand). In a bit more detail: If in a species, a male’s sperm has to compete directly against sperm of other males, a larger supply of it will be advantageous up to a point. (Balanced of course against the disadvantage of the added weight, vulerability, and resource costs. )

Henry

Comment #100155

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 6, 2006 10:40 PM (e)

No, it’s more complex than that – in some animals, there are sperm that serve specifically as “blockers” who entangle and slow down sperm from other males, allowing their team-mates to reach the, uh, finish line first.

Comment #100159

Posted by Henry J on May 6, 2006 11:19 PM (e)

Re “No, it’s more complex than that”

That figures.

Re “in some animals, there are sperm that serve specifically as “blockers” who entangle and slow down sperm from other males, allowing their team-mates to reach the, uh, finish line first.”

Now that’s a dirty trick. LOL.

Henry

Comment #100208

Posted by Hellbound Alleee on May 7, 2006 10:04 AM (e)

What’s the deal with everyone using the words “beenus” and “weenus?” Maybe I’m too tired to get the joke. Are we not allowed the word “penis,” and “vagina?” I don’t mind “pussy,” either. It’s a much better animal than the dirty old beaver. Pussies clean themselves, beavers swim about in mucky old rivers. And Dick, Rod, Johnson, any of those man names are fine, but we’re not afraid of proper names, I thought.

Comment #100211

Posted by some dude on May 7, 2006 11:10 AM (e)

Hellbound Alleee,

No, we’re not afraid of proper names. Some euphemisms are just way more hilarious than their more-official counterparts. I’m not sure why; they just are. Hence, terms like weenus dominate what would otherwise be a less-hilarious discussion.

Also, it seems like the threads that garner 100+ comments involve either god or frank zappa. I declare this to be direct evidence that frank zappa IS god.

Comment #100218

Posted by stevaroni on May 7, 2006 2:45 PM (e)

…beavers swim about in mucky old rivers.

The beaver is a proud and noble animal, and if you keep slagging on it the entire nation of Canada may beat you up.

They will, however, beat you up very politely, as is their custom.

Comment #100221

Posted by the pro from dover on May 7, 2006 6:05 PM (e)

To complete the thread on Beatles apochrypha the only one who actually left the band voluntarily was the original bass player Stu Sutcliffe who stayed in Germany with his girlfriend after the Beatles were through in Hamburg. At this time Pete was still the drummer. I can’t vouch for this but rumor has it that Pat Robertson wanted to audition for the position because he thought that the Beatles manager Brian Epstein was “hotter than Fred Phelps is a rubber teddy”. When he was denied Stu soon died of an aneurysm once again proving that it isnt nice to thwart The Man Who Speaks For God. It has never been clear to me why Paul so readily took over bass which is usually thought to be less important than guitar.

Comment #100223

Posted by Mark Studdock, FCD on May 7, 2006 7:11 PM (e)

This is the stupidest thread I have ever seen on PT. Haven’t been here in a while…

MS

Explanation: If the quote by Ken Ham is not actually a quote from him then the rest of this drivvle is unfounded creationist hate.

Comment #100228

Posted by fnxtr on May 7, 2006 10:57 PM (e)

Stevaroni wrote:

The beaver is a proud and noble animal, and if you keep slagging on it the entire nation of Canada may beat you up.

They will, however, beat you up very politely, as is their custom.

…and we will apologize afterward, too.

Comment #100229

Posted by Dr Paisley on May 7, 2006 11:24 PM (e)

Dr. Alan Gillen is a biologist and zoologist with a doctorate in Science Education. Having taught biology for two decades at all grade levels,
Dr. Gillen is presently a professor at Pensecola Christian College in Florida. (He reportedly has no weenus.)

“Yes, it’s true, this man has no weenus.”

–Dr Peter Venkmann

Comment #100244

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 8, 2006 3:03 AM (e)

Explanation: If the quote by Ken Ham is not actually a quote from him then the rest of this drivvle is unfounded creationist hate.

So antievolutionists don’t actually have a problem with secondary sex organs, and the creationist anatomy textbook really does have drawings showing all the parts?

Comment #100252

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 8, 2006 10:47 AM (e)

Actually, those wild, sexy bonobos are on display at some U.S. zoos—about ten North American zoos have bonobos, according to their Species Survival Plan. I have seen nonplussed parents in front of the bonobo display at the Cincinnati Zoo trying to deal with questions of the “Mommy, what are they doing?” genre. For you parents of four-year-olds out there, “Wrestling” or “Playing” seem to be satisfactory answers.

At the Oakland zoo, this is primarily an, uh, issue with the camels. They hump (no pun intended) very conspicuously and often, usually lasting up to 30 minutes and accompanied by loud bellowing. In my experience, it’s quite impossible to tell any child over age 5 that they’re doing anything other than what they’re doing.

It’s also extremely amusing to watch the parents’ nervous expressions while this is going on.

I couldn’t agree more: analysis followed by rectification!

“Rectum? It nearly killed him!”

Thank you, thank you, I’m here all week!

Comment #100255

Posted by RBH on May 8, 2006 11:12 AM (e)

Arden wrote

“Rectum? It nearly killed him!”

I thought that was funny the first time I heard it, something like 60 years ago. :) Though I recall it as “Rectum? Hell, lady, it kilt ‘um!”

RBH

Comment #100261

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on May 8, 2006 11:31 AM (e)

“My brain? It’s my second favorite organ.” Woody Allen, Sleeper, 1993

Off by twenty years, or perhaps it’s a typo. I’m surprised no one else caught this.

Comment #100285

Posted by tim on May 8, 2006 3:40 PM (e)

One point which seems to have been overlooked: If Lucy’s boobies can still turn a few heads after 4 million years, it certainly gives hope to all woman “of a certain age” feeling that their charms have lost their youthful bloom.

Comment #100287

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 8, 2006 3:45 PM (e)

Mmmmm….crunchy post-modern goodness! Either Lucy is a human or she isn’t. If she isn’t what’s the big deal about showing her nekkid? And if she’s human, then she must be a transitional form.

Good point! If she’s not human, then what’s wrong with her boobs? Aren’t gorilla boobs okay for kids?

Anyway, I don’t know what to do about Lucy, but she sure treated Linus and Charlie like shit.

Comment #100503

Posted by J. Hernandez on May 12, 2006 3:51 AM (e)

Evidently, since Frank Zappa, who without doubt was in league with Satan, introduced the term ‘weenus’, then that term must be a product of Satan’s plan to drag men and women into hell. Since, by association, the body parts that the term ‘weenus’ references are polluted, then, by analogy, as God buried fossils in the earth to test our faith regarding the origin of life, He must also have placed those body parts into his design as a way of testing our faith regarding the origin of babies. Now, if i can only figure out why God designed sarcasm.

Comment #100912

Posted by Brad on May 15, 2006 9:03 PM (e)

well,
here in Nawlins’ (new orleans)
all the preacher types have gotten busted with hving hookers in their rooms.
guess its OK, they only broke a coulple of rules.
see the lights were off…
after the hurricane, they figured OGD destroyed all the satanic worhipers of the flesh, becuase the boobie bars are plentiful here,
but, actually, the french quarter DIDNT flood ??

Guess they think hes just got bad aim ;)

Comment #103260

Posted by Allison Trump on May 31, 2006 8:24 PM (e)

This is cool, you have to try it. I guessed 37672, and this game guessed it! See it here - http://www.funbrain.com/guess/

Comment #104022

Posted by Roland Glicks on June 6, 2006 3:43 AM (e)

Please contact me by ICQ: 884149169. I have a news for you.

Comment #109209

Posted by Emily on June 29, 2006 7:10 AM (e)

id love to see a boys private.