This guy, Ray Comfort, is going to be soon debating an atheist on the existence of God...without using the Bible (You can read about some of the details here). I don't want to get into why I think this is a really bad idea right now, but just wanted to show that if this guy uses the "banana" illustration, then...well, you be the judge of that.
A few things to note. First, "that's what she said." If you don't watch The Office on a regular basis or if you are a lot more mature than me, then you either won't get it or won't think its funny. But just for kicks, count how many "that's what she saids" and post a comment. And second of all, there are a few banana species or types that are near impossible to peel with your fingers. In fact, you have to cook them. According to Ray Comfort's logic, would this be evidence against God?
I don't know, I just think these are really bad arguments and only work for Christians. And maybe its because i'm a presuppositionalist and not an evidentialist. To say, "i'm not going to use the Bible," just means, "I'm going to temporarily abandon my presupposition and allow you to stack the deck."