Talk:Banana argument/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

...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? ^{— Unsigned, by: 70.197.51.197 / talk 18:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)}

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|Fan^{I know what I don't know} 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No, because atheists do not have banana-related nightmares any more than the rest. ListenerX^TalkerX 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?--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

This article and talk page come right at the top of the first page of Google for Banana fallacy. Is it good enough for silver? Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:52, 3 October 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)

I'd definitely give it my blessing for an upgrade. ADK^{...I'll explode your error!} 13:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Upgraded. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:28, 4 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. --68.111.79.211 (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)--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's kinda weird but it makes a relevant point. Sam ^Tally-ho! 00:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Side-by-side

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.

What about the Trinidad Scorpion Moruga? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The flaw in the argument

There are no beer-dispensing plants. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Ty^JFBANBSRADA 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes 'squaring the logic' (ie applying the proposers' logic to their own theories) shows the obvious flaws and provides some amusement. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This does not appear to be one of those times. Sophie^Wilder 19:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"retconning"

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)

PZ Myers doesn't leave the house? :-)

"Retcon" is one of those newfangled internet-generation words that requires regularly socializing with people under 30 to get. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:25, 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.

This is actually the proper way to open a banana. ShadowFan-X (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That video just changed my whole outlook on life. Blue (is useful) 02:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought they ripped it open at the side, or am I mis-remembering this? ^sshole 08:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No, no, that's how they go about eating small children. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That's just their atheism talking. ^bomination 14:29, 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. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 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)

Ray Comfort didn't make this argument up

This banana argument goes back before from Ray Comfort. Back in the 90s, David Brandt Berg, in one of his comic-style publications, compares the banana to the coke can. He argues that the former is the original, God given product and that the latter is man's version of it. Ez fx (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC) q=banana+fallacy

The article doesn't state he's the originator of this argument. Can you cite a source that I can include in the article? ^{— Unsigned, by: Zero / talk / contribs 17:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)}

To what extent

have bananas been developed under human intervention to fit the banana argument?

And what about kiwi fruit (fit nicely in the hand, quarter them, eat the contents and dispose of the wrappers tidily); peanuts and pistachios (small, easily peeled, high in nutrients, biodegradable wrappers) and green branched tapioca? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No, not that your question makes sense. Zero (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Writing in a hurry (library time limits etc) - could be referring to the kiwi etc fallacy. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Disproof of the 'fruit designed for human consumption' argument

The fruiting bodies of are Amanita bisporigera, A. phalloides and related species.

And possibly durians. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time determining what you'd like to be edited from the article. Could you try again? Zero (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Two mushrooms which are #decidedly not# for human consumption.

Is the banana fallacy bananas? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I just came here to say...

Whoever put the dancing banana in this article deserves a gold star.^{— Unsigned, by: 96.228.170.213 / talk 06:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)}

Tabs

Ah, but the lack of tabs on other foods doesn't disprove that god made bananas for his creations, merely that god doesn't intend for you to ever eat anything but bananas. Of course once you realize this you should also realize that adam and steve were chimpanzees. ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.149.28.113 / talk 08:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)}

Wild cats

Not an editor here and unfamiliar with the rules and usual ways of doing things, so I'm just throwing this out for whoever wants to use it.

The other problem with Comfort's example of the domesticated cat is that we didn't breed them, at least not until recently. Cats were self-domesticating. How that worked is not exactly known, but it's not difficult to develop a plausible hypothesis. With the agricultural revolution came cereal storage, which attracted rodents, and wild cats were attracted by the plentiful prey. The first cats would have been as shy of humans as non-socialized domestic cats still are, but once a kitten was adopted by a human family it would have grown up socialized, and domestication is on its way.

Until relatively recently, cats were not bred, but were allowed to breed themselves as "barn cats" even when individuals may have been taken in as housecats and particularly beloved pets. (We find a cat buried alongside a human as long as 9500 years ago. As this was on the island of Cyprus, cats must have been brought in deliberately by human settlers.) The originals of the various breeds were simply local varieties that had developed on their own via isolation, founder effect, and genetic drift. I've been unable to find any reference to deliberate breeding of cats any earlier than the mid-19th century.

So if God did give people the knowledge about how to do this with cats, he withheld it until after we'd already figured out how to breed traits into a whole bunch of other things. Including bananas. 192.91.173.42 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Cover?

A reader suggested this was cover-worthy. At a glance, is there anything it needs? - David Gerard (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

While I'm certainly to be counted among the newest of the RationalWiki contributors, I do wear my hat backwards and use a lot of slang in disregard of society's norms, and my humble impression is that it looks cover ready based on;

• The state and contents of of the article in question
• Comparisons to other cover articles on RW
• Comparisons to other articles on RW generally
• Considering at least ten years of reading various wiki articles on various wikis

I'll hang back and observe the cover-worthy deciding process (gotta learn the ropes sometime), but as far as babby's concerned, things look ripe. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@RBP: No need to be humble. :P

@DG: I think it could be covered, as long as we get rid of that fucking navsidebar. What reader, BTW? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to be sure

I haven't been here long and am still exploring although I've come to feel that the sky's the limit, but the banana-design quotation: Is that really for real??? I think this takes the cake today if so. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: Just to blow off: Bananas aren't made, well or otherwise, they're grown! But I'm probably only preaching for myself. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The quote is real. And Bananas do grow and are in fact partially a product of design. human design or rather selective breeding... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the phrasing artificial vs. natural selection. It's the same thing to me, since I happen to be a mammal, more or less alive and kicking, and I believe I'm just as much a part of nature as the ants who grow fungi or the termites who build palaces. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: Just to be sure, and I can't really emphasize this enough, I'm not some back-to-nature whatever. My preferred ecological niche happens to be a city, one city in particular. I just mentioned this for consistency. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It's man made use of a natural process. Man selects what they find desirable and picks the selection pressure to make those traits come out like smaller seeds, sweeter flesh, and disease resistance that are not present naturally (without mans intervention). The only real difference is what produced the selection if it was something present in the world or someone choosing to. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

We'll have to have to disagree. I can't see any principal difference between selected breeding and some habitat altering catastrophe. The same general laws apply. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The difference is what caused the change, and that one is to survive in a changed world while the other is to make it better for human consumption. Except for those two things the mechanism how it is achieved is the same. To me, this is like saying you don't understand the intent of cooking pork for human consumption and a pig caught in a forest fire. One is natural, fires happen, the other is raised and processed for human consumption. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There are also some outcomes that are vastly more likely to be the product of one, rather thaen the other. For example, "hybrid" seeds depend on very deliberately producing two strains of very "pure" genotype (i.e. AA allels instead of say Aa or Ab) and thaen crossing them for maximum benefit in the F1 generation. Something like that rarely if ever happens naturally. On the other hand, I have yet to hear of a toxin deliberately bred for through "traditional" breeding (as opposed to GMOs), especially not Toxins that could harm humans. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It still seems to me that you are separating humans from the rest of nature. Whether there is a will or not involved, it is still natural selection. It is even random in both cases since a roll of the dice determines which mutations appear even when selecting. Again, let's agree to disagree. I can see no fundamental distinction. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This was mainly a reply to EmeraldCityWanderer. To use the opportunity and save me the trouble of looking up, which city is so nicknamed? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

To simply things to such a degree, that readers will probably subtract 50 IQ points from my previous estimation whatever that may have been (not that IQ tests are worth much, but that's another story). We're part of nature. Nature selects one way or another, willingly in the the case of humans but still retaining a random component (in more ways than one - human beings act randomly at times), or unwillingly for all the rest. I think I'm trying to say and I have to use a word to be avoided, the „agent“ of evolution is immaterial - and I specifically exclude ID, if you are faced with humans vs. the rest of nature. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a distinction in common usage if either of us like it or not, and existed long before either of us did. It certainly jumps my estimation of IQ down when you try to accuse me personally for terms you don't like that are thousands of years old. Sorry for trying to help you understand a distinction. Again, no good deed goes unpunished. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I must have overlooked this entry, but if I came across as insulting, that was definitely not intentional. So I apologize. I can be insulting when I so choose, but that requires deliberation and this was not the case. In any case, I was thinking about logic, not common usage. The word "theory" has similar problems. But to repeat: My exact point was that regardless of common usage there is (IMO) no real distinction. All the bestSorte Slyngel (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This is deteriorating and becoming philosophy, but on a philosophical note: Is a concrete block of flats any less natural than birds' nests, termite towers, anthills etc? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That depends on what your definition of the word "is" is. Actually, the question is: What is natural? If something humans do is always natural, what is artificial? Also, this Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal answer: Everything is natural by definition. I know this is simplistic, but I can't see a way around it. All the best Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well that would mean the very term is meaningless Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really, just all-encompassing and removing a false dichotomy. I followed your link, and I hope you have noticed that I have not used any value laden words. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Just as an example. The observable Universe is all there is or at least all we know there is. That doesn't render the word Universe meaningless. But I don't think this is leading anywhere. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: I couldn't resist mentioning an old favorite of mine. You often see "Free of chemicals" or something like that in ads. They are of course playing a word game here. Anything chemical free is devoid of any substance perhaps excepting a few things like photons in transit etc. :-) Sorte Slyngel (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

So this whole thread is just you playing pedantic word games. OK. Bicycle^wheel 23:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not it. The key word is consistency. I do play pedantic word games every now and then, sometimes not pedantic, but this is not one of those times. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: Did you read the whole thread or just my last PS which was a joke? Everything else was thought out to the best of my ability. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well the common definition of "natural" includes the possibility for something to be conceivably "un-natural". If I understand the etymology of "Universe" correctly, that word implies the impossibility of something outside of it. Being "universal" and stuff Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic, as I was just called, if a word exists, it doesn't necessarily follow that it has an un-whatever companion. I don't think I can be clearer, and I'm getting tired of being serious. Just now I had to apologize for a totally unintended and probably misunderstood insult. I have fun debating if there is a possibility of consensus, but I don't think this is getting us anywhere. I'll invoke the dreaded word „belief“ and suggest we both keep ours to keep this thread from growing out of all bounds. As a compensation, for those who can stomach my rather icy kind of humour, I do like telling stories, and that I can do here to my hearts content. :-) Don't take this as a dismissal, I like your contributions, but there is an idiom somewhere about beating a dead horse, and I think we're doing that now. Out of curiosity, where in the world are you? The name of the continent is sufficient. :-) Actually, by stretching definitions a bit, I live on the continent of Iceland. After all, we're expanding both est and west. :-) Time for bed Sorte Slyngel (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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*.

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

(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

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

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?

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)