Reply to "Biology of Snack Cakes"

Date in my archives: 3-May-1990

Newsgroup: rec.humor.funny

Forwarded with subject: More on Snack Cakes

Hi Brad,

A month or two ago someone posted a note on the evolution of cupcakes. My good friend, Rev. Billy Bob Ed Jimmy-Bud Loone, wishes to repudiate that article with the following. We are not sure if the original article appeared here or in some other news group. If you happen to know, please reply and we can post there. Otherwise please feel free to post this where you feel it is most appropriate. Thanks, yer luvin' Uncle Bert.

REPLY TO "BIOLOGY OF SNACK CAKES"

It is obvious that this so-called scientific paper is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to obscure the true origin of snack cakes. In fact, as every right-thinking American (pronounced "Uh- murr-kun") knows, God (pronounced "Gawd") created snack cakes (pronounced "Ecchh!"), as is believed by every True Fundamentalist (pronounced "goober"). As proof, I submit the following quotations from the Not-Quite-So-Old-And-Pretty-Darned-Well-Preserved-If-I-Say- So-Myself Testament:

"In the beginning, the grocery was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the 7-11."
(Haagendasz 1,1)
"And on the seventh day, while He was resting, He created snack cakes. And He saw that they looked good, and He did bite into one, at which time he realized that they tasted like something that had been sitting on a shelf wrapped in cheap plastic for decades. He had too much goop on His fingers to blast them into the void from which they had come, and therefore He drove them out until they had left the Promised Land and were stuck in a cheap, tacky display on the end of the aisle."
( Haagendasz 3, 12-15 )

"And ITT begat Hostess, and Hostess begat Morton, and Morton begat Stuckey's and Stuckey's begat Beatrice, and Beatrice begat Little Debbie. And Beatrice did leave Little Debbie with Hostess and go forth into the wastelands looking for a good spot at a truck stop. And Beatrice then did go a few miles north from the wastelands and did settle in Nebraska, never to return to Norman, Oklahoma."
( Endust 12, 7-10)

"And when Hostess saw that Little Debbie had taken Hostess' own snack cake and named it a Ding-Dong, then Hostess saw that Little Debbie was no longer pure of heart and had in fact been looking in the dirty magazines by the checkout counter. And Hostess said unto Little Debbie, 'Go forth from my house, and thou shalt wander the earth until thou dost find a place where men with beer bellies drive old pickups with Easy-Rider rifle racks in them, and there thou shalt dwell forever, or until a Twinkie decomposeth, whichever cometh first.' And Little Debbie left the house of Hostess, grumbling something unintelligible about telling the American Medical Association what cholesterol does. And when Little Debbie found a city wherein all manner of men called her Baby and Sweetie, she did build a dwelling and sell her Honeybuns to all those that would pay her."
( Endust 21, 4-12 )

If these quotes do not convince you that God did indeed create snack cakes in the image of real food, then there is no point in citing the quotations wherein the idolators are ordered to worship the RDA and the golden oatbran. You non-believers will all go to the Fourth Circle of Hell, where you will burn for all eternity in boiling Hostess Cupcake frosting.

However, I can provide other evidence of the Truth of snack cake creationism. Consider the following mysteries of modern snack technology that the so-called 'theory of the evolution of snack cakes' (or as Darwin called it, 'The Origin of the Spices') cannot explain:

If snack cakes evolved as claimed, where is the fossil record? We know from decades of experience that they never decompose, so where are the transitional fossils of their ancestors? Or as the famous French poet put it so elegantly, "Ou sont les neige-balls d'antan?" ("Where are the Snowballs of yesteryear?")
If snack cakes evolved as claimed, where did such wonders of nature as the Snowball, the Hostess Fruit Pie, and the Moon Pie (properly pronounced as 'Mooon Pah' in its native land) come from? How could the random genetic variations of evolution have produced such marvelous creatures as these? Surely God's squiggly illegible handwriting can be seen in the creations of such amazing snack cakes.

The Hostess Fruit Pie shows no resemblance to other snack cakes, and even has a solid, tasteless exoskeleton. How could this have evolved from the Twinkie or the crumb cake (which evolutionists claim to be the earliest snack cake)? The hostess Fruit Pie shows a truly wondrous means of survival. When someone bites into its solid exoskeleton, it erupts out the other end, quickly oozing onto the nearest hand, dress shirt, upholstered furniture, or brand-new carpet, where it can hide until it has once again regenerated its exoskeleton.

Or consider carefully the Pink Snowball, that amazing Pufferfish of snack cakes. Rather than developing a means of escape, like the Hostess Fruit Pie, the Pink Snowball has developed a marvelous means of defense. It allows the unsuspecting predator to put large quantities of its gooey exterior into its mouth, at which point the predator realizes to its chagrin that its breathing passages have become completely blocked with something that has the consistency of caulking compound (and a similar taste). The predator dies a slow, agonizing death, which serves as a warning to similar predators to avoid the harmless-looking but deadly Pink Snowball.

The Moon Pie is another wonder of nature that cannot be explained by evolutionary theories. Consider the amazing fact that of all the known species of snack cakes, it alone has an endoskeleton! Its endoskeleton consists of two solid disks just under its pseudo-chocolate integument. Scientists cannot even agree on the composition of this endoskeleton. Although some scientists claim that it is edible, most contend that it is composed of material more like cardboard or styrofoam.

Modern science has not yet determined if the Stuckey's Peanut Log is actually one of the snack cake species, or perhaps just a petroleum by-product. Recent evolutionary theories have proposed that the Stuckey's Peanut Log is actually the fossilized remains of the early proto-Ho-Ho (also referred to in the current literature as the Unpleasingosaurus), or more likely, the early proto-Nutty-Ho-Ho. However, as anyone knows, these theories are absurd, since fossilized matter is much more edible than the Stuckey's Peanut Log.

In the modern tradition of Scientific Creationism, I thus produce the following syllogism:

I have pointed out some points you have not yet explained.
Therefore you are completely wrong.
Therefore I am completely right. QED.

I rest my case.

Religiously Yours,
Billy Bob Ed Jimmy-Bud Loone
Reverend, Evangelical Church of the Divine Wonderbread

Edited by Brad Templeton. MAIL your jokes (jokes ONLY) to funny@looking.ON.CA
Attribute the joke's source if at all possible. A Daemon will auto-reply.

Jokes ABOUT major current events should be sent to topical@looking.on.ca
Anything that is not a joke submission goes to funny-request@looking.on.ca