Talk:Banana fallacy
m (Bot: Changing instance of Template:Rated) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Rated | {{Rated | ||
| − | |1= | + | |1=1 |
|2=creationism | |2=creationism | ||
|3=Icon_creation.svg | |3=Icon_creation.svg | ||
Revision as of 21:12, 2 October 2011
...and sexy--PalMD-yada yada 19:13, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
- seriously, he could be talking about another object entirely.--PalMD-yada yada 19:15, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
But c'mon, Pal! Kirk Cameron endorses the banana argument! --Kels 19:42, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
- (Nods like AK)...yes, of course.70.227.200.194 19:42, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
Did nobody tell him that the bananas he eats are seedless and do not occur in nature? The natural version is full of large, hard seeds, and isn't especially convenient! Totnesmartin 07:58, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- Yet more evidence that God hates us and wants us to suffer. Stile4aly 10:57, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
If bananas were intelligently designed they wouldn't taste like bananas. 59.167.57.120 06:00, 5 March 2009 (EST)
My brother has a fear of bananas. Seriously, he won't touch them or taste them. He thinks they're weird or something. Maybe he really IS having nightmares about them...But anyway, I seriously don't understand how anyone takes Way of the Master seriously. Can you believe it made it to 3 whole seasons?!! I would've dropped it after the pilot if I was in charge...Bttsstewart 05:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Edible bananas come from sterile hybrid plants. The cavendish and plantain bananas are parthenocarpic, meaning they're sterile. No seeds means no reproduction without cloning. Every cavendish banana is genetically identical to every other cavendish banana sold in the world. A sterile non-reproducing-without-human-intervention plant is evidence of god's work?
Contents |
Plagiarism
According to a comment by Pyrolonn on this YouTube video "It is not widely known but Ray Comfort stole the whole banana bit from early 80s movie Oh God Book 2 with George Burns playing God". Can anyone substantiate this? Lily Inspirate me. 10:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Ebert gives a thumbs up
Well sort of, on his twitter account he retweets a link my friend put up linking to this page during their discussion of the youtube video. And others are spreading it across twitter, so this is getting some nice play, if we want to clean it up some? tmtoulouse 04:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Move?
Should I move it to "Atheist's Nightmare"? Why or why not? Colbert|FanThe last of the Revolutionary farmers! 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, because atheists do not have banana-related nightmares any more than the rest.
ListenerXTalkerX 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The European Union angle
Banana bentness regulation should be brought in somehow (and whether Euroscepticism = atheism).
Bananas have no more to do with atheism than the flowers that bloom in the spring (tra la). 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Nor do Gilbert and Sullivan. — Unsigned, by: 86.135.183.34 / talk / contribs
Hey
Wouldn't it make more sense to call it "banana argument"? It's not a structural error in logic, but one certain argument. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- But then you don't get the double entendre. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Red bananas
I know it is an old joke, but would it be worth noting that there actually are red bananas? — Unsigned, by: 208.110.184.6 / talk / contribs
- They taste kinda funny. But you do bring up an interesting (at least to me) point. There are many different kinds of bananas and not all exhibit the properties the banana fallacy is concerned with. I'm thinking mostly of platanos which require frying to eat. Surely God did not envisage this?--"Shut up, Brx." 13:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)