Meh. I watched his vid and, frankly, I have no interest in his questions. They don't seem to advance the quest to discover what's real and what's not about the universe and existence--whether or not a deity truly exists--and so I see no point in the exercise, personally.
The original definition by Nathan Poe: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article." In other words, by trying to create a parody you create something that is just as believable.
It no longer applies just to Creationist parodies but to anything.