Bananas the Atheist's Nightmare

While you watch, play a little game called "spot the sexual innuendo." Amazingly, I completely missed them and they had to be pointed out to me by a friend.

I counted 4, but I think we all win... Unless your favorite wasn't "the contents don't squirt in your face.". Unless this guy is a male prostitute, there is just no reason to be amazed that the contents don't squirt in his face. He might as well have said, "You'll notice, the contents don't squirt in your face, then throw money at you while you cry inside a bathroom stall in a highway rest-stop, but then take solace in the fact that the 5 dollars you earned by sucking-off an obese trucker with a swastika tattoo will go to buying you a new pair of Gucci sunglasses." Isn't God considerate?

Things I liked about this video:
1. Even Kirk Cameron couldn't keep a straight face.
2. This guy completely ignores the fact that bananas as we know them are a human creation, the result of domestication. Which means: a) this guy is too lazy to do a wikipedia search and b) wild bananas are far from human friendly. So even assuming bananas are perfectly designed for humans (wouldn't they not have a skin if they were designed for us, I mean we are a lazy bunch, especially in America, see the KFC bowls) God didn't design them, we did. Even if they were perfect for us, what does that prove? Coincidences do happen, and if it wasn't a coincidence, then shouldn't all the food we eat be perfectly designed for us? The pomegranate? Meat (which we have to cook before getting most of the nutritional benefits)? Not only that, but doesn't evolution give a good reason for the seeming design of the banana(if make the faulty assumption that the banana as we know it is the original "god-given" form of it)? Often plants evolve to be appealing to the organism that eats them so that the organism spreads the seed or pollen of the plant through its waste. That's why fruit is sweet and why some plants have nectar. The sweet coating around the seed is incentive for animals to eat them. Primates have been around for a long time, it could have been possible that banana plants evolved along side primates in order to specifically appeal to them. But I can not stress the importance that I am merely showing one of the ways that apparent design can be a byproduct of evolution, I am NOT saying that banana's DID evolve to appeal to primates.
3. British accent.
4. This brings up an idea I have always found amazing. Generally, in science when one part of a theory is proven wrong, the whole theory has to go out the window. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity predicted that light would bend as it passed by planets because masses bends the fabric of space-time, if it was shown that light did not bend (in fact this was one of the major experiments which proved relativity) the whole theory probably would have had to been thrown out or modified beyond recognition. But religion doesn't work like that. This man is saying that bananas show God's existence, why isn't it that once we show that bananas as we know them were not designed by God (which was remarkably easy in this case) the whole theory isn't thrown out? It absolutely should be. But instead they simply move on to the next thing, "Ok, well how about the eye? No? How about the central nervous system? No?..." They are not trying to explain the world, they have arbitrarily arrived at an explanation and are haphazardly trying to find anything that will support their position, when in reality everything should support such a broad theory, and yet so little does.