WorldNetDaily: Rev. Rives Debunks Lucy

We were jolted to wakefulness by the blaring sirens and flashing lights of our Retard-o-tron™. The blinking letters on the wall said WorldNetDaily. As you know, WorldNetDaily (WND) is the flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed.

So we visited the WND website and were directed to yet another new video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries. The last time we brought you a David Rives video was Evolution’s Fraud Is Exposed! In that one, Rev. Rives beat us over the head with Piltdown Man.

Today the rev takes on another fossil — Lucy. As most of you know, Lucy is the famous fossil of a hominid that lived about 3.2 million years ago.

The rev’s video can be found here: Human ancestor or just … monkey? It’s less than two minutes long, but it’s powerful! Go ahead, click over to WND and watch it.

You will note that the rev claims Lucy’s bones were found scattered all over the place. That criticism is mentioned at TalkOrigins’ Index to Creationist Claims: right here. Casey has also criticized Lucy, as we discussed in Discovery Institute: Casey Luskin and Lucy.

But we think you’ll agree that Rev. Rives’ criticism is the most devastating of all. It’s time to face it, gentlemen — our theory is doomed!

Copyright © 2012. 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

10 responses to “WorldNetDaily: Rev. Rives Debunks Lucy

  1. christine Janis

    He’s right — surely a human ancestor would be *much bigger*. After all, the bible says that “there were giants on the earth in those days”

  2. stylusmobilus

    He’s right. Lucy is probably not the only one around with a small brain, but I think he might be somewhat misguided about who else has the small brain.

  3. I watched it with great expectations, and …. that’s it? Lucy is small? That’s his entire refutation?


    I searched for a while online but cannot find any reference to David Rives’ background and education. He doesn’t post his credentials, religious or otherwise, on his ministry website. WND promotes his videos, but even they don’t mention anything about his education or qualifications other than he is known for his videos. Very strange.

  4. Ed: I did the same (look for Rives’ credentials) a few days ago, after SC’s last post on him. I couldn’t find anything either, other than WND referring to him (then) as “Astronomer David Rives.” I see today’s WND article has dropped the “Astronomer” part, or at least not so blatantly claimed it (they say he is “known for…his national lectures on Creation and biblical astronomy.”) I think, from reading some of his articles, that he’s a wiki-astronomer- which is to say, about as much a one as I am. And he’s probably not even up to the standards of wiki-biology. Of course, he does have that freshly-scrubbed, clean, wholesome, the-boy-every-grandmother-would-love-her-granddaughter-to-meet look, where image outweighs any need for credentials (or credibility), so- he’s got THAT going for him.

  5. Thought it was interesting that he drops a couple of comments (the ash, the fact the two discoverers were alone and recanvassing a previously-worked area, for instance) that seem to be designed to impute doubt without requiring him to actually come out and say anything tangible. It’s an interesting tactic — giving a nudge and wink without laying out anything that would be refutable. With that kind of glibness, I wonder if the good Rev. was a lawyer or staffed for a politician before he found his ministry.

  6. @ SRJ It is not an original tactic though. It is why any important find in Britain is photographed in place before it removed, or even touched. To help prevent such claims.

  7. “But we think you’ll agree that Rev. Rives’ criticism is the most devastating of all. It’s time to face it, gentlemen . . . . . . .””

    Female scientists don’t count?

  8. waldteufelwaldteufel says: “Female scientists don’t count?”

    In that context, “gentlemen” is gender-neutral. Like in “All men are created equal.”

  9. SC said:

    But we think you’ll agree that Rev. Rives’ criticism is the most devastating of all.

    On the contrary, I think I just heard the sound of a gauntlet being thrown down. Said Rives:

    Perhaps Lucy isn’t the only one with a small brain.

    Which I translate as, “Oh, it’s on now.”

  10. I assume that the small brain reference was a self-reference. As in I cannot understand this stuff so I just read my Bible. My Bible is simple.