- 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.188.8.131.52 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. 184.108.40.206 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?
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)
- 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).
 Red bananas
- 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)
- I wouldn't say argumentum ad googlum is particular valid for an upgrade. But I'm happy with it. Thing is, the article started as just that point-by-point bit and then expanded. Although I enjoy the snarkommentary, it repeats a lot and needs tightened. ADK...I'll hear your octopus! 14:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 Squirt in the face
Hi there, first post on this wiki, about the squirt in the face comment I think he was just compairing it to how a Soda Can can squirt in your face, suggesting that it is superior to mans design. Keeping in mind this was before he found out God gave us the blue prints so we could make a bannana. I think we lost those blueprints. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 "Bad sex" section
What the fuck? I'm aiming to delete that, although it's pretty big and I imagine some might object. Seriously, what the fuck? (note that I started playing a new video game "The Polynomial," and that it's frantic pace and fast colors have left me feeling a little fuzzy- that may explain my reaction)--"Shut up, Brx." 00:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there any actual pressing need for that bit to be side-by-side? It's not taking extensive amounts of text from somewhere else and seems to be slowly deteriorating in quality. Like, someone's inserted "WRONG" and "WONG AGAIN!!!11" style bits into it. Which is odd, because it's just summarising a video response, rather than being a side-by-side of actual content. gnostic 09:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 Why didn’t God
Why didn’t God “place a tab at the top” of oranges, grapefruit, lemons, or limes? Duh. Because oranges and grapefruits are meant to be sliced in half and juiced, and lemons and limes are meant to be sliced in smaller pieces to be put in cocktails. Stupid evolutionists! CasparRH (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
And cherries should grow candied.
 The flaw in the argument
- Thank you for your contribution. TyJFBANBSRADA 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd replace this with a word, but I don't know what it means. What the fuck does it mean, and why don't we use the words that it means? A bit rough in a "silver" article. ħuman 02:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Retcon is syllabic abbreviation for "retroactive continuity." Revisionist history is the term used by people who leave the house. 02:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 He doesn't even know how to open a banana
Curiously enough, contrary to what Ray says, it can actually quite difficult to open a banana from the stem (although this varies from banana to banana). It is easy to crush the top of the banana when peeling it that way.
- That video just changed my whole outlook on life. Liquid Blue 02:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 Evidence against God
|Even granting every one of Ray's premises (that the banana in its natural state is seemingly designed to help humans, and this supports the existence of God) doesn't actually prove that God exists. If one particular object being seemingly designed to help humans is evidence for God, then the apparently limitless things in the universe seemingly designed to hurt humans must be evidence against God. Viruses, harmful bacteria, tigers, and the vast emptiness of space are all singularly well-suited to harm humans, and, on Ray's reasoning, must be taken as evidence either that God doesn't exist or that he does exist and is insane (having produced a universe that doesn't seem to be governed by any overriding principle). By sheer space occupied, the things that hurt humans outnumber those that help them, and therefore, by Ray's own argument, God doesn't exist.|
This is more ridiculous than Ray's argument, or was it suppose to be? If hurt us than help us why aren't we dead? - π 06:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think that it's just pointing out the logical flaws of Ray's argument. I don't think it's seriously proposing that atheists use it as a general argument against the existence of God. Генгисmarauding 07:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's based on the principle that if the presence of something is evidence for then absence is evidence against. So if the vast majority of things out there in the world display a significant lack of design or an active hindrance to us, then Ray's logic should conclude that God does not exist or God is an asshole (these kind of arguments can't distinguish between support for atheism and maltheism). It's a facetious and ridiculous point, yes, but only because Ray's point is so ridiculous in the first place. Still, if you accept that "convenient design" is evidence for an intelligent designer, then "inconvenient design" should be evidence against. Weigh those two up and "no God" or "incompetent/evil God" wins.
- This wouldn't wash with Ray himself, though. He has some, erm, interesting thought processes. pathetic 00:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- More specifically to ca.22/7's point, if there is more in the world that are a hindrance rather than a help to us, it doesn't follow that we should all be dead. It simply means we struggle to survive - and in our natural state, we do. Natural selection in fact relies on the world being a complete and utter bastard in our direction. d hominem 01:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)