Longer version?
Here's a longer version of the famous banana video. The "soda can" introduction is pretty mind-boggling stupid misunderstanding of evolution; and his "banana argument" naturally follows from it. It then goes on with the familiar "the eye can't possibly have evolved"-argument (including the dishonest Darwin misquote that seems to pop up every time a creationist talks about the eye).
Comfort himself has argued that the video we currently use is "out of context". In fact, the video in context is *even more wrong*.
Just a guess: Since he opened with a man-made soda can, the squirting probably refers to the explosive qualities of a well-shaken can. He probably wanted to indicate the superiority of "God's" "design".— Unsigned, by: 188.8.131.52 / talk / contribs
 Extending the argument
(Old uncooked) eggs and over-ripe 'supermarket apples/tomatoes' are 'just the right size' for holding in the hand and throwing at 'appropriate targets.' They have a shell/peel to contain the contents until they hit the target, when they create a satisfying smell/mess. However they do not normally cause actual physical damage. Therefore they were intelligently designed.
 Is the banana argument
- THIS GUY RIGHT HERE ^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Glad you like it (184.108.40.206 in disguise).
 If god is'nt real explain Rount Mushmore?
- The first derivative of Godwin's Law - 'The person who first mentions Hitler/Stalin/other 'kneejerk bad guy' without justification automatically loses the argument.
- The first derivative of the first derivative - saying 'I though this was supposed to be RATIONAL wiki!' loses the argument.