Question why is kirk Cameron getting the bad rap for the banana "proving the existence of God" statement

Question

wasn't it ray comfort who proposed the theory?

Answer 1

Because people are born sinners and they like being hurtful.

Until Christ, then they are still sinners trying not to be hurtful.

No Christ, they stay hurtful.

Answer 2

I think what people hate the most isn't the explanation of how a banana is used as proof of God's existence, but that the explanation is so simple and makes sense. For those who are commenting on it that don't even know what it is or just don't know what they mean then here is the explanation:

The banana -- the atheist's nightmare.

Note that the banana:

1. Is shaped for human hand
2. Has non-slip surface
3. Has outward indicators of inward content:
Green-too early,
Yellow-just right,
Black-too late.
4. Has a tab for removal of wrapper
5. Is perforated on wrapper
6. Bio-degradable wrapper
7. Is shaped for human mouth
8. Has a point at top for ease of entry
9. Is pleasing to taste buds
10. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

How this shows proof of God's existence is because it shows evidence of design. Each part of the banana has a purpose which is shown in the ten reasons. Purpose isn't created by chance it is created by someone who has something specific in mind that they want accomplished.

Same goes with the crockaduck, the sheep dog, or bullfrog you people like to make fun of, the point of the picture is that the idea is absurd which you obviously picked up on and made for them so to that degree thank you. What is even more hilarious is that you try to claim that they were trying to show something in that picture that should have existed, when in reality it was the point of the picture that they were trying to make. Your hero Brian "Sapient" says that the million little steps (micro evolution) adds up to one big step (macro evolution), if this is true then I side with Kirk and Ray. If evolution is true and it took millions of years for one species to turn into a completely different species (i.e. dinosaurs to birds as has been theorized) then by all accounts there should be a complete fossil of an animal that contained both traits of what it was and what it was to become, unless you are implying those steps where invisible. I mean those steps no matter how micro they are will eventually add up to something correct. History should give us a fossil record that is basically a time lapse camera of a change from a dinosaur to a bird or an apelike creature to a human, but it hasn't. As kirk said there are various types of horses (zebras, mules, donkeys, etc.) and various types of birds etc. but a bird will always breed a bird and a horse will always breed a horse. There is not one complete fossil that you could bring to the table that is half one thing and half another....any example you come up with I can assure you is a complete animal that can be labeled as a reptile, bird, mammal, fish, human, etc.

So when you criticize them for their analogy, which logically has no basis of inaccuracy, ask yourself what it is you are actually criticizing...the logic and reason or the simplicity. Is that what bothers you the most is that it is so simple yet makes sense and in your mind it can't be that simple?

Answer 3

between the state-of-the-artwork ideas used by way of great Christian theologians is that of "the floor of Being." this theory shows not that God is the actuality of issues present, yet that God is the muse for the life of all issues. God is greater necessary to present issues than the rest. So necessary to the life of all issues is God, that God would nicely be seen the muse upon which issues exist, the floor their being. to assert that God is the floor of being or being itself, is to assert that there is a few thing we can experience it is so particular related to the character of being that it tricks at this necessary fact upon which all else is predicated. The words "floor of Being" and "Being itself" are in fact an identical theory. Tillich used the two at diverse circumstances, and different theologians alongside with John McQuarrey choose "Being Itself," yet they actually talk to an identical theory. Now skeptics are constantly asking "how can god be being?" i think of this question comes from the actuality that the term is deceptive. The term "Being itself" supplies one the impact that God is the certainly actuality of "my life," or the life of my flowerbed, or any merchandise one ought to care to call. Paul Tillich, on the different hand, mentioned explicitly (in Systematic Theology Vol. I) that this would not talk over with an existential actuality yet to an ontological status. what's being mentioned isn't that God is the actuality of the being of a few particular merchandise, yet, that he's the muse upon which being proceeds and upon which gadgets take part in being. In different words, because of the fact that God exists perpetually, not the rest can finally end up devoid of God's will or theory; and because there won't be able to additionally be a skill for any being devoid of God's theory, all possibilities for being arise in the "concepts of God" then in that experience God is unquestionably "Being Itself." i think of "floor of Being" is a miles less perplexing term. God is the floor upon which all being is predicated and from which all being proceeds.

Answer 4

Having not seen the debate which appears to be at the center of this, I can't say for sure. But the notion that a banana, or anything else, proves the existence of god is silly, and if Cameron supported that notion, he is a nitwit.

Answer 5

It is difficult to comprehend a human being of such low intelligence. What is truly funny is the number of people who think that he is some brilliant know it all, rather than an idiot who thinks that his words are somehow inspired by god and will convince anyone who actually has a brain in his head.

Answer 6

I think Ray and Kirk came up with it together while playing with bananas, and probably some lube. "See how perfectly it fits, Kirk?"

Answer 7

I thought the banana theory was good.

Answer 8

People love to bash Christians. Let them have their fun, after the rapture we wont have to put up with it any more.

Answer 9

Yes, but Kirk was sitting next to him, nodding in confirmation with a goofy vacuous smile on his face.

Answer 10

Walk like a duck, talk like a duck and keep the constant company of ducks, most people assume you are a duck