The banana arguement

[Stoicheion]

I copied and pasted this from a website (here's the website :http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/atheist.html )

The banana-the atheist's nightmare.  

Note that the banana:

   1. Is shaped for human hand

Um... what? I see no grooves for my individual fingers.
   
2. Has non-slip surface

What relevance does this have? What about finger prints? Aren't they responsible for us being able to grip the vast majority of things?
 
 3. Has outward indicators of inward content:
      Green-too early,
      Yellow-just right,
      Black-too late.

... so what?
 
 4. Has a tab for removal of wrapper

Once again. Irrelevant.
   
5. Is perforated on wrapper

sorry... but no. A banana is not perforated. You have to rip the rind off in order to get to the inside. It just doesn't stick to the inside when it gets peeled.
 
 6. Bio-degradable wrapper

True. But, how does this prove anything? Poop is biodegradable but we make that ourselves
   
7. Is shaped for human mouth

Since when is the human mouth perfectly tubular?
   
8. Has a point at top for ease of entry

OH okay so forget about the laws of physics, it was God
 
9. Is pleasing to taste buds

Isn't it pleasing because of the combination of chemicals? What about people who don't like bananas
 
10. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

Depends on how you turn it

[sniff]smells ridiculous to me

[Kyuuketsuki]

Some good points you made there and it's worth pointing out that the banana argument as originally used (with a comparative coke can touched on in point 4) is deeply flawed since it ignored the fact that the banana is actually far easier to open from the other end (try it) which is, apparently, the way the monkey species that feeds on them (the one that if the argument were true would have been designed for the banana) actually DOES access the fruit inside. And that also brings up the other point which is if it were designed for said monkey it can hardly be designed for humans.

Kyu

[MariaEvri]

hmm i thought that the banana we eat is a domesticated plant? have you guys ever seen a wild banana? D:

[Kyuuketsuki]

hmm i thought that the banana we eat is a domesticated plant? have you guys ever seen a wild banana? D:

Sure (I think it is a particular "breed" which is something of concern because there is reputed to be a parasite that affects them and they could all get wiped) but that doesn't cancel the point made since bananas are still basically bananas ... though (he muses) I suppose it might affect the theist argument in which you could almost turn round and say, yes, bananas are designed ... by humans

Kyu

[curiosityandthecat]

[youtube:nnx2usfa]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo[/youtube:nnx2usfa]

 

[Sophus]

So now a banana is proof of god?

This reminds me of Douglas Adams's "intelligent puddle" statement.

[PipeBox]

So very bogus.

If it weren't the banana, it would have been the grape (look, it's bite-sized, has color indication, it easy to chew and digest, and is seedless) or the apple (non-slip surface, color indication, shaped for the human hand, and is largely spherical so you can just rotate it to eat more) or some other fruit.  This is a sad case of, aside from general ignorance, picking the most favorable example and running with it.

What about the pineapple?  I want to know how that fits in to God's grand design for man.

[Zarathustra]

What about the pineapple?  I want to know how that fits in to God's grand design for man.

  Don't you know? God put it there as obvious evidence of his existence & goodness!

[curiosityandthecat]

What about the pineapple?  I want to know how that fits in to God's grand design for man.

I'd be more interested in how they'd use taro.  

[PipeBox]

What about the pineapple?  I want to know how that fits in to God's grand design for man.

I'd be more interested in how they'd use taro.  

Good find!

[MariaEvri]

[youtube:1g7y24q7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo[/youtube:1g7y24q7]

 

[Arthur Dent]

[youtube:1kv382ew]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo[/youtube:1kv382ew]

 

Shoots itself in the foot by trying to describe the big bang. The big bang is the result of a collision (of what?) and how does the rotation of a galaxy have ANYTHING to do with it? lol

The part about Einstein was absurd. Dawkins addresses that occasionally and says that when he dies, he will have a tape recorder so they will know that he was not a deathbed convert or anything crap like that. Einstein struggled greatly with people taking his words and twisting them to make it appear as if he was on their side.