Kirk Cameron: The Banana and Creationism

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Apr 22, 2006.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    there's a video there. the C&L instructions say to watch starting at 3:30, but if you watch before that -- particularly the bit about the can of soda -- the banana bit makes more sense.

    if "making sense" can be applied here at all...
     
  2. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #2
    If there are two fruit that complement each other better than anything, it must be the banana and the pineapple. I've always loved eating the two together. But I was always so angry at God for making the pineapple so difficult to eat, with its stiff, sharp leaves, tough skin and fibrous core. They're such a pain. Does Kirk and Ray have an explanation why pineapples are like this? I'm genuinely curious.

    Oh, and don't even get me started on canned pineapple. Truly an abomination. :mad:
     
  3. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #3
    So you would appreciate it all the more...
     
  4. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #4
    Why do creationists always cite analogies between something inert, like a soda can, a building, or a computer compared to living things? There is a tiny difference: One is alive and the other isn't. Yeah, of course it sounds insane to think a full can of soda developed out of the big-bang by chance. But that isn't what the theory of evolution tries to say, in fact, it is quite the opposite. Evolution talks about life slowly changing over time. Creationism states things started fully formed. Evolution states that each generation of an organism allows for this change through selective pressure. Creationism states life was placed here on Earth by a perfect and loving God and is unchanging.

    Therefore, these wretched analogies creationists make are more suitable for comparing creationsim (preformed, unchanging designed objects) to itself than to evolution (spawned by predictable polymerization of biochemicals with slow accumulation of changes resulting in speciation).
     
  5. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    I have yet to see someone who holds a banana -- handjob style -- like this guy says they were designed to be.

    Some very creepy pole-smoking preacher overtones to the whole presentation there.
     
  6. mpw Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    #6
    OK here are a few things that spring to mind after watching that video.

    Those guys are seriously deluded. I'm pretty sure the banana isn't actually a fruit but a berry. The whole bananas prove God because they can be easily held, are non-slip, are pointed for easy entry....aren't all these attributes also ideal if I wanted a horny ape to pick one up with his foot and ram it up my arse. Have I just proved God is OK with sodomy and bestiality?
     
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #7
    enough said
     
  8. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #8
    After just watching the banana segment (and a bit of the following eye segment) I have but two questions.
    1. If the banana is representative of God's perfection, does that mean God f'd up everything else that lacks the features of a banana?
    2. When Kirk is talking about the marvels of the human eye do you think he got all that info from a minister?


    Lethal
     
  9. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #9
    I'm obviously not a big fan of religion. However I don't feel the need to push my personal choice on others. I do admit that it bothers me when people put forward spurious arguements against a sound theory**.

    **Relgious people please note I always refer to evolution as a theory. It can't, and won't ever be a fact. We can't go back in time to actually observe the origin of life on Earth. Yet it would upset people if I began calling Christianity a theory.
     
  10. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #10
    I do. :eek:
     
  11. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #11
    I've always believed that just because some parts don't make sense, that doesn't mean you have to throw out everything. Some parts are pretty good and make a lot of sense, and what doesn't can sometimes be explain via other means or later discoveries.

    Now, which was I talking about? Religion, or science. Exactly. Think about it. ;)
     
  12. mpw Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    #12
    I thought you were talking about MS Windows XP.
     
  13. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #13
    Theory is something that is a reasonable idea and has a body of evidence that supports it. However only a fact is something that has been proven. Proof usually is in the form of direct observation. Sorry for seeming a bit on the pedantic side.
     
  14. thedude110 macrumors 68020

    thedude110

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    #14
    Theoretically, I'm not sure that's factual at all.

    Factually, that's bunk -- empiricism is awfully subjective for all the "facts" it claims.

    @everyone: Did anyone stick around long enough in the video to see the misappropriation of Darwin? The use of Darwin as an authority on the impossibility of evolution? :confused:
     
  15. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #15
    Let me guess, this guy is friends with Tom Cruise... :cool:
     
  16. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #17
    You didn't answer my question. ;)
     
  17. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #18
    Why do "Creationists" reject Darwins theories on evolution then turn around and say that one of his quotes on the human eye proves there is a "god"?:confused:

    Either believe him or dont. You cant be selective.
     
  18. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #19
    I think it has to do with the idea of authority. To those who believe (have faith in) authority, there is nothing that could disprove evolution better than Darwin questioning the theory, because he is its author (well, other than God going on Leno to talk about it).
     
  19. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #20
    Easy response to this (my emphasis below) - from http://www.banana.com/farming.html:
    Edit: and picture of one species of wild banana.
     
  20. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #21
  21. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #22
  22. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    You get an eye bred.

    What a silly question. :)
     
  23. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #24
    Is that an example of natural see-lection?
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #25
    You deserve 20 lashes.
     

Share This Page