Information icon.svg Please vote in the 2017 board of trustees election. The cabal thanks you for your service.

Talk:Banana argument

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This creationism related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too!

This article is of MID importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Silverbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Longer version?[edit]

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*.

Does anyone have any objections if I use this video on the page, and expand it to include it? Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Not I. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

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: 185.26.182.35 / talk / contribs

Extending the argument[edit]

(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.

(I am observing, rather than advocating violence) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the banana argument[edit]

... bananas? 31.51.113.130 (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif THIS GUY RIGHT HERE ^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Glad you like it (82.44.143.26 in disguise).

If god is'nt real explain Rount Mushmore?[edit]

Checkmate, athiest! I though this was supposed to be RATIONAL wiki! --31.48.204.184 (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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.
I smell sarcasm. 207.233.76.9 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Arguments against the banana argument[edit]

Would include eg [1]. 31.49.137.175 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Only humans use the "tab" on bananas[edit]

It just occurred to me that Ray's "argument" has the "tab" on the wrong side of the banana - monkeys and apes (specifically the natural-banana-eaters with hands) actually open it from the other end, by pinching the "nub" between thumb and index finger - causing it to split.

A quick google will show many videos of the practice in action - and most people agree it's far less likely to "smoosh"[sic] the banana from leverage than the "tab" method is.

It might be worth including this in the article to further point out how ludicrous the "godly" design of the banana is? Feel free to ignore the suggestion though - just thought you folks might find the "bottom-opening bananas" interesting :P 62.7.71.94 (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)