Rev. David Rives — Startling Discovery

The Drool-o-tron™, with its blaring sirens and flashing lights, augmented by blinking wall displays, was screaming at us this morning.

The dazzling letters of the wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND). We found our computer locked onto WND’s presentation of the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries. WND’s headline is The gecko that disproved evolution.

When you click over there — and we know you will — you’ll see that the actual title of the video is Geko Feet Don’t Display Evolution. It’s about a “startling discovery” that you probably won’t learn about anywhere else but here, because the evil Darwinists don’t want you to know The Truth.

The best part of this is that it’s only a minute and a half long. You can spare the time. You must spare the time!

As we usually do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules, but please remember — although bathroom jokes are acceptable, they must be in good taste. Okay, the comments are open. Go to it.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

35 responses to “Rev. David Rives — Startling Discovery

  1. Wha!?!? That was absolute the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard. I’m not a scientist, let alone an evolutionary biologist, but Jesus F. Christ, was that ever a total disconnect from the reality of evolution! The non sequitur-segue (Ouch!) from lizards to mammals — alone — makes my head spin. How can Rives stand the cognitive dissonance swirling around in that head of his (I hesitate to credit him with a brain)?

  2. Rives signs off his insane piece with

    Something is very wrong with this picture. What do you think is the solution?

    Grab a mirror, David, and all will be revealed!

  3. Realist1948

    Rives’ video reminds me of the old non-argument that goes, “If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?” IMHO the basic confusion Rives plays on is the mistaken notion that “evolution equals continual progress.”
    But Rives does make one good point: By adapting to a changing environment (the Internet and streaming video in this case) Rives demonstrates that evangelists are evolving…. even though they retain noteworthy vestiges of their reptile brains.

  4. OK, an idle thought for the Free-Fire Zone:

    Or rather, an exciting challenge, which is this: Can anyone come up with a genuinely meaningful and worthwhile use for the Discoveroid’s Design Inference? No one actually uses it in the illustrative analogies they so regularly trot out–that is, no one has ever, upon first viewing Mount Rushmore or happening upon an abandoned watch on a heath, ever questioned whether these were ‘designed’ artifacts–, and none of their applications of ‘Design Inference’ to the natural world (bacterial flagella, the spawing habits of salmon, the prancing of ponies, &c &c) is in the slightest bit compelling. So the challenge here is to actually find a case in which the ‘Design Inference’ actually means something; it’s a generous exercise in trying to give the IDiots the benefit of the doubt.

    Here is the very best I can do so far: Crop Circles. The first time someone encountered elaborate crop circles, one might argue it was reasonable to raise a Paley-like question along the lines ‘is this a natural occurrence or the handwork of some designer?’ Presumably this would lead to some sort of measurement of ‘CSI’, although I have never seen a cogent account from the DI on how CSI is empirically (rather than intuitively) detected, nor how it is then measured (or even in what unit of measure) &c &c–but let that go for now. Absent a CSI detector, one could still use legitimate science and establish that no tornado or freak weather event was likely to have created a crop circle that was an outline of, say, Bart Simpson, or perhaps spelled out the words “OLIVIA + MEGS 4EVER!”. In such cases, one could confidently conclude, “There must have been a designer!”

    But…so what? First off, the ‘Design Inference’ has done nothing to establish this conclusion, it’s empirical science that does that–but only by so examining natural phenomena (winds, rainfall, etc.) with sufficient thoroughness to give us the fullest possible confidence in our understanding of their possible effects. And secondly, the simple conclusion of “There must have been a designer!” tells us nothing about how the crop circle was made manifest, nor, of course, the identity of the designer.

    And on this last point: we all know the IDiots (mindful of the Establishment Clause) insist is not the business of ID–but that very insistence absolutely renders the design inference of no use or meaning whatsoever, as in our Crop Circle example. It is remarkable to me that, even after folks had come forward to confess they had made the crop circles (and had the videos to show them making them), a number of idiots persist in the belief that crop circles are sometimes created by unknown Extraterrestrial ‘Designers’.

    Yep, you can’t maintain that kind of reality denial without recourse to the old CSI Design Inference!

  5. Rives obviously doesn’t comprehend the rather straightforward concept that is “the preservation of favourable traits” which is inherent in biological evolution. Perhaps someone should point out to him that an ability to extricate woolly yarns from threadbare straw men is not a favourable trait.

    Put that in your CSI. ;)

  6. Truly, the video reveals the vacuum within Rive’s head. He may as well have said turtles had shells 220 million years ago, and they still have them today. Therefore… no evolution? Huh?

    This video is a Category Five WTF event.

  7. But was David Rives aware that 15 minutes could have saved him 15% or more in Gecko car insurance? That discovery alone would have made it worth writing about.

  8. Note to Megs: On this side of the Atlantic, thanks to a very popular TV series, millions more people think “CSI” stands for “Crime Scene Investigation” than the Discoveroids’ “Complex Specified Design”, or whatever they call it. Is it on your telly?

  9. I meant “Intelligence”, not “Design”. Duh. (I guess that’s what the DI means by “CSI”. Never paid much attention to it.)

  10. Charles Deetz ;)

    @Megalonyx, so you are hoping the we enlightened folks can come up with a better example of potential DI than the tuters can? They’ve been doing this for years, supported by untold ‘creationist wisdom’ purveyors writing letters and blog posts with potential (but lame) examples. Maybe it just can’t be done?

    My swing at it is ants and the colonies they build, the way they adjust for seasonal flooding. How do they know to do all this, since they are all so dumb? But I don’t think this is exactly a case of DI.

  11. Pope Retiredsciguy notes

    On this side of the Atlantic, thanks to a very popular TV series, millions more people think “CSI” stands for “Crime Scene Investigation”

    Yep, it’s broadcast on this side of the pond as well–it’s global. It helps confirm the general UK perception that the US is awash in gun violence, drugs, and preternaturally white teeth.

    In the Disco’Tute context, the acronym would better indicate Creationist Stunning Insanity, or something…

  12. Charles Deetz boldly takes on the ‘Design Inference’ challenge:

    My swing at it is ants and the colonies they build, the way they adjust for seasonal flooding. How do they know to do all this, since they are all so dumb?

    They probably keep an eye out for bewildered salmon, whose on-board intelligently-designed GPS system has gone haywire–a sure sign of impending floods!

  13. So, is the Rev going to present the crocodile and the shark as his next coup de grace to evolution? Seeing as how those hardly changed over the millions of years either… Or maybe he just never heard of those wondrous evolution-disproving creatures…

  14. “When you click over there — and we know you will”
    Yes! Yes! Of course I will! And he is back with a vengeance. Yup – gekko feet not evolving totally means mammals haven’t evolved either. Hence god.
    Note that the Good Reverend (ain’t he attractive?) accepts an Old Earth. Ol’ Hambo won’t like that.

    I have another one for the Good Reverend. According to Evolution Theory amoeba developed cell nuclei a few billions of years ago. Know what? The amoeba today still totally have the same cell nuclei!
    Checkmate, atheists.

  15. Megalonyx asks: “Can anyone come up with a genuinely meaningful and worthwhile use for the Discoveroid’s Design Inference? No one actually uses it in the illustrative analogies they so regularly trot out …”

    No one thinks in the patterns they present. At least, no humans do. I’m convinced that someone there slips goofy things into their simplistic claims, to simulate the appearance that some kind of logical argument is involved. That’s how it seems with their filter, and their nonsensical CSI (Complicated Sounding Idiocy). Sane people recognize it as balderdash, and their drooling fans, who wouldn’t know a logical argument from a crocoduck, are impressed with their brilliance.

  16. Holding the Line in Florida

    Retired Sci Guy “This video is a Category Five WTF event.”
    Oh man, I am laughing. Best I have read in a while. It has just been added to my list of appropriate moment replies! Thanks!!!

  17. @Megalonyx “…no one has ever, upon first viewing Mount Rushmore or happening upon an abandoned watch on a heath, ever questioned whether these were ‘designed’ artifacts …”

    And who would, on considering about the origin of such a thing, would take it as a serious reply “it was intelligently designed”.

    Especially if the “designer” would could be time-travelers from Alpha Centauri, and that this was like the design of the vertebrate eye!

    Yes, “It was designed by Picasso”, or “… by weaver birds”, or “… by a 4th grade class”, or “… by computer”.

  18. @Holding the Line in Florida: Thanks, but I owe it to the inspiration I get from all the clever and witty commenters here — not to mention the Curmudgeon himself. It’s as though we are in a contest to see who can ruin the most keyboards with spewed liquids. I think Curmy must be far in the lead with his postings of creationist letters, videos, and his witty eviscerations of Discoveroids’ scribblings.

  19. Oops — got carried away reading the great trilobite link provided by DavidK and forgot to proof the above comment to close the bold. Oh, well…

  20. waldteufel

    By the time the Rev was about 15 seconds into his drivel-dispensing on the video, watching the images of the gecko’s foot next to the Rev, it became clear to me that the more intelligent of two was the gecko’s foot.

  21. This is OT, but lately I’ve been having fun tweeting at Klinghoffer and Denyse O’Leary on the contents of their posts. It’s pretty hilarious IMHO. They don’t reply much, but a ball of yarn does not reply to the kitten batting it around.

    You don’t have to register with Twitter to watch the hilarity. Klinghoffer is @d_klinghoffer, O’Leary is @itsdesign, and I’m @diogeneslamp0.

    I’m concocting Twitter tags to classify ENV posts, including:

    #GodOfTheGaps

    #LabCoatEnvy

    #pubjacked (for hijacked evolutionist research articles)

    and Nick Matzke introduced #IDerrors for falsehoods that can be rebutted in 140 characters or less.

    I plan to introduce a Twitter tag for examples of IDers or creationists demanding censorship of evolution. Perhaps #AntiDarwinThoughtPolice or #CensorshipOfEvolution.

  22. Ceteris Paribus

    waldteufel noticed: “watching the images of the gecko’s foot next to the Rev, it became clear to me that the more intelligent of two was the gecko’s foot.”

    And notice that the gecko and the Rev are both dressed in bright blue. So apparently the ID wasn’t satisfied with his first creepy blue gecko critter, and went on to design a creepy blue reverend critter.

    Which leads the creationists to ask: If creepy blue Reverends evolved from creepy blue geckos, then why are there still geckos?

  23. Megalonyx: “the general UK perception that the US is awash in gun violence, drugs, and preternaturally white teeth.”

    How dare you accuse us of preternaturally white teeth!

  24. Notice two things about Klingtwit.

    1. He uses an underscore in his handle. Who does that anymore? #IDiot

    2. He never answers a question except to write “buy my book.” #IDiot

    Klingtwit’s twitter feed is like a fever swamp of IDiocy. My computer was so disgusted it hopped off the desk and took a shower.

  25. Oh, I checked out the gecko story and it dates back to 2008. Foot in amber and the gecko had evolved the little hairy feet. I guess according to Rives it should have evolved into a bat or something. I don’t know. What do YOU think?

  26. SC himself already answered your question, Doc. The gecko should have evolved into a Good Reverend.

  27. Btw, SC, shouldn’t you censor DavidK? He gives us a link to sheer porno!

    “They did it in the nude.”

  28. I’ve been checking out the Rev’s television show every Wednesday at noon on TBN. This week he had Paul Taylor an Englander who now sets up shop in Pensacola, FL (very likely indicates a close association with the Hovinds) He’s been thumping the literal Biblical week for 35 years now. Along his lines of evidence if you take the names of the Biblical patriarchs it comes out:
    “The God man is appointed, a mortal man of sorrow is born!
    The Glory of God shall come down instructing that His death shall bring those in despair comfort and rest.”

    If it was missing names it won’t work so the Earth must be around 6000 years old!
    David is having trouble finding guess, he recycles his guests over and over. David starts with one of his Heaven’s declare videos and then is pretty much acts as a cheerleader for his guest. He is quite telegenic though I grant him that.
    Great link, thanks for the trilobites. Never saw one that had the 3-d shape intact! Fantastic! I have no doubt when our ancestors developed jaws it was curtains for the trilobite. That said I hope that someday extant trilobites are found, though being shallow dwellers it is unlikely (extant coelacanths were found in extremely deep water.)

  29. Troy: “That said I hope that someday extant trilobites are found, though being shallow dwellers it is unlikely (extant coelacanths were found in extremely deep water.)”

    Who knows? you’d think that in all the vastness of the Abyssal Plain, some deep-dwelling trilobites may well be there. The only reason we know of coelacanths is that one was caught by a fisherman (yes, more were caught/found since then, but that got us looking). As far as I know, no one is trolling the Abyssal Plain for trilobites. Sure be a tough sell for a getting a research grant, though.

    About that featured trilobite in the NY Times article with the fantastic recurved spines all over — it reminded me of the shape of the end of burdock burrs, the purpose of which is to snag a free ride. I wonder if that might have been what was going on with this species of trilobite. It would be a great way to get to new territory, expanding the species’ range. What started out as defensive growths to prevent being eaten may have evolved into hitch-hiker’s hooks.

  30. Since this is a free-fire zone, I’d like to revert to my teaching days and give the class an assignment. Go on Google Earth and take a good look at the perfectly semi-circular shape of the southeast shore of Hudson Bay. Note also the semi-circular line of islands just offshore. They don’t appear to be the Outer Bank-type sand bar islands one might expect, but instead appear to be composed of the same ancient, fault-laced granitic rock of the adjacent mainland. I have a geology text that shows a semi-circular fault running between the islands and the mainland, but it’s in Indiana and I’m in Florida, so I don’t have the title handy. The ring of islands would be expected, as the rock along the fault is more easily eroded, separating the islands from the shore.

    My point is, although it has not been confirmed as such, I can’t see how this can be anything but an ancient impact site. If so, it would be by far the largest on earth — if not even the solar system. (The Belcher Islands in the middle of Hudson Bay may well have ridden in at a much later date by plate tectonic activity.) To me, the clincher is the semi-circular fault — such faults are a hallmark of large impact craters. I don’t know if anyone has ever proposed another way a circular fault could form.

    Anyway, take a look and see what you think.

  31. Ceteris Paribus asks: “If creepy blue Reverends evolved from creepy blue geckos, then why are there still geckos?”

    One wonders if perhaps the geckos evolved from the Rev. In which case, why are there still Revs?

  32. RSG: this website says Hudson Bay is not an impact site.

    http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/planets/impact-No.htm

  33. @Diogenes: Yes, it says it’s not an impact site, but gives no definitive reasons for saying so. I’ve seen the presence of the Belcher Islands cited as evidence of Hudson Bay not being an impact, because the islands show no evidence of impact deformation. But those citations don’t take into account that the Belcher Islands may be relative latecomers to the scene, moved by tectonic forces. As far as I’ve been able to find, it has not been studied that extensively. The whole region is hard to access, it’s extremely cold most of the year, there are polar bears around — there are many other places in the world where geologists would rather be.

    The nearly-perfect semi-circular fault between the islands and the mainland tracing the outline of the bay is hard to explain by any other cause. Other evidences of crater formation may well have been wiped clean by glaciers and other erosional forces over the billions of years since this potential crater may have formed.

    By the way, there are several other apparent impact sites in the region besides the two cited by the website.

  34. Cardinal Megalonyx writes> “Yep, it’s broadcast on this side of the pond as well–it’s global. It helps confirm the general UK perception that the US is awash in gun violence, drugs, and preternaturally white teeth.”

    And preternaturally white teeth implies the existence of a whitener! There’s a Design Inference for you right there!

    And @Cardinal Diogenes: #Kilnghoffered