Today’s comic comes to us from the hilarious Savage Chickens webcomic, authored by Doug Savage:

We really should spend more time thinking about this. If there is “more” … wouldn’t you want to find it? Y’know, before it’s too late.

Related links:

• Paris Hilton and What We Want - Sad but true: Paris Hilton, superstar tramp, was the #1 search term in Google last year. Isn’t there more than this?
• Where do we go from here? - “It’s hard to get what you want if you don’t know what you want. “

It’s the most controversial and shocking new interpretation of Leonardo’s work since The Da Vinci Code: It’s The Da Vinci Toad!

Expert art historian Teabing Saunière^* commented that “This novel new vision of Leonardo’s art easily equals Dan Brown’s novel in terms of historical accuracy. When you look closely at the Mona Lisa, you can clearly see a mostly dry looking, airy landscape, perfectly suited for toads. And what of Mona Lisa’s enigmatic smirk? Leonardo even mentions toads in his own notebooks! Based on this evidence, I think we can conclude that the Mona Lisa was really based on a toad.”

Further reading on The Da Vinci Code:

• TheLife.com’s Da Vinci Code site - Many useful articles
• CBN.com’s Da Vinci Code Response - Features an easy to read comparison of the novel versus reality
• Discuss Da Vinci - Blog covering many issues arising from The Da Vinci Code book & film

Did you know that bread is dangerous? I don’t mean like “I’m on the Atkins diet I can’t eat bread”, I mean that bread can seriously kill you! Don’t believe me? Check out this site: Bread is Dangerous! Of course, that link is satire. There IS a point to this however: Just because A and B are correlated doesn’t mean that A necessarily causes B, or that B causes A. Both A and B may have a common cause, or it may simply be a coincidence. It’s certainly possible that A causes B, but you need to explain why in order to have a persuasive argument.

(This post gave me a chance to do something I’ve never done before: Draw an angry face on a loaf of bread. Huzzah! I deem it a success.)

Sinfest, Dec 12 2001

Well, since I wrote about demons last week, I guess I’ll talk briefly about angels today. The popular images of angels with wings and halos began sometime in the 4th century, whereas angels are (biblically speaking) essentially spiritual in nature, not physical. They have no particular physical characteristics, although they may take on human form to better communicate with us. Angels are also not ‘good people who died’, like Clarence in It’s a Wonderful Life; instead, they are a seperate class of created, spiritual beings. Recently there seems to be a resurgence in interest in angels in the media and popular consciousness, although usually they are depicted in a caricatured way, like in the cartoon above. Like demons, I think (this part is my opinion) it’s good to recognize angels exist, but foolish to dwell upon their existence or put too much emphasis on them.