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:

1.  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?")

2.  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