The Banana: an Atheist's Nightmare

[Archmage]

Now with working link!

Bonus link:

The entire food industry proves evolution NEVER happens!

[Idran1701]

Neither of those links work, Brian. :(

[Archmage]

*shoves Idran in a bag*

You saw nothing. The links have always worked.

[Endesu]

Silly Idran! AM mistakenly linked 'Share' links as opposed to 'Watch' links, which he has subsequently edited so that the videos can be directly viewed at length.

The truth cannot be hidden. >:

[glu-glu]

FUCK BANANAS! they can easily be used to support either side.

[Ark]

Damn, I want to get a Jar of Peanut Butter and keep it in the light and heat for over a million years and see if I can get only peanut butter back. Damn you time and making this impossible for me! Damn you.

That Banana one was awsome. The coke tab at the top - which is only called the top because of the tab (because really, does a banana have a top?) - was a stroke of genius. And hands perfectly formed for banana's too. We is so lucky.

Does this make banana's a sacred food then? As God so purposefully wanted us to eat banana's? If so why aren't banana tree's made to grow in every country in every climate!? Why did man have to wait s long to get to eat this wonderful creation? Damn my new found faith is already stiring up questions!

Cool.

Almost makes me want to watch T.V. again.

Well I like the fairness of it all. If science programs always get shown with there "facts" and stuff, tis nice to see Religious shows of the same vien.

Hurrah for progress!

[Idran1701]

I'm surprised Brian didn't link the response to the Atheist's Nightmare video either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soMzhH7s ... h_response

To sum up; bananas as we normally eat them are a specific breed of banana known as the "dessert banana", and are the result of our own breeding of banana plants over centuries; basically, a low-tech GE food.

Natural wild bananas, however, are small, round, stemless, dry fruits with large seeds, that are fairly starchy and from what I hear not that good-tasting.

[Justice Augustus]

I bet you they didn't look for bacteria in all those tins of peanut butter. Who knows how many new strains were created?

[PriamNevhausten]

Life from non-life, apart from God's direct intervention, is a fairy tale.

Irony!

[Jak Snide]

Hey, someone else that knows that our bananas are wonderful, sterile genetics freaks!

[BrainWalker]

Glu-glu's apparent dislike for the noble banana saddens me :(

Also, I can't decide if the creationists or the evolutionists are more retarded.

[PriamNevhausten]

I demand proof of retarded evolutionary arguments.

[Archmage]

I demand proof of retarded evolutionary arguments.

At this rate I'm going to have to move this thread to discussion, but:

The basic issue here is that evolution is science whereas creation is not. There's a reason there's no such thing as "evolutionism"; creationism is an untestable, non-falsifiable hypothesis and therefore falls squarely into the camp of belief/faith as opposed to logic/scientific rigor.

What this means is that it is "retarded" (or at least ignorant) to "not believe in evolution," because belief is not an important component of science; it is a phenomenon that happens whether you believe it or not. Note that evolution is distinct from abiogenesis, which is the issue of life arising from non-life. To state that one does not "believe in evolution" is akin to saying "I don't believe in gravity," or, to use a more abstract, less-obvious example, "I'm not sure I'm convinced light has both wave and particle properties."

However, the "retarded" argument from the standpoint of "evolutionists" (which really means "atheists") is basically to turn around, act very enlightened to the "truth" of the world as demonstrated by science, and denounce all faith slash religion as worthless superstition that never did any good for anybody. That seems like a pretty broad statement to me--and it seems like a pretty easy statement to falsify, to boot.

[Idran1701]

Note that evolution is distinct from abiogenesis, which is the issue of life arising from non-life.

To be fair (and I'm being really pedantic here, I'll admit), that's not entirely true, is it? I mean, abiogenesis would have to be a subset of evolution, given that since life didn't always exist, at some point something that isn't life would have to lead to something that is. And logically, it would seem to me that this would essentially be the result of microevolution in that those first lipid shells interacting with the RNA precursors (or whatever the most likely theory of life origins are today) would bring about a small change in form over a few generation-equivalents to the first microorganisms.

They aren't the same, but they aren't technically distinct processes, I'd think. Though abiogenesis in the ridiculous way Mr. Peanut Butter up there described it certainly would be.

[Archmage]

To be fair (and I'm being really pedantic here, I'll admit), that's not entirely true, is it? I mean, abiogenesis would have to be a subset of evolution, given that since life didn't always exist, at some point something that isn't life would have to lead to something that is.

It is, indeed, pedantically the case, but Darwin specifically never attempted to explain that particular bit with his theories about evolution; other theories, however, have arisen to do so.

So it is a subset of evolution, but it is not at all part of the original Darwinian theory--and it should be noted that "intelligent design" proponents are always referring to "Darwinism" as though it, too, were a religion/ideology, but the point is that Darwin in particular is the typical subject of attack. This is a silly thing for ID to do, but it's in vogue.

[Nick Shogun]

I was talking to my cousin about this, and after I was done explaining it, she asked, "So atheists don't eat bananas, then?"

For some reason, I found it hilarious.

[Lenore]

you know...I'm actually HAPPY there's no new life in my fricken' Penut Butter, OKAY!? NO LIFE IN MY PB&J PLEASE.