Rev. David Rives — The Oort Cloud

The Drool-o-tron™ startled us with its sirens and flashing lights. The blinking letters of its wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND). Our computer was locked onto WND’s presentation of the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries.

Because we’ve been recently slimed by WND’s re-postings of the rev’s older videos, we were skeptical, but our skepticism diminished when we saw WND’s headline: “Oort cloud – phantom or fact? We haven’t posted about that before. But we’ve learned that WND changes its headlines for repeat postings, so we looked at the actual title of the rev’s video — “Phantom Cloud” New Name for “Oort Cloud”.

We haven’t posted about that either — well, not that video. But we have posted about the Oort cloud before. It’s the proposed source of new comets. The rev has boldly renamed it the Phantom Cloud.

Creationists don’t like Oort cloud because the liquid and gas component of comets that regularly orbit the Sun will eventually evaporate and they won’t be able to exhibit their distinctive tails. Therefore, they say comets shouldn’t exist any more. Like the formation of new stars, a source of new comets upsets their dogma — see AIG: Comets Prove the Universe Is Young.

Nevertheless, the Oort cloud is a new subject for the rev, so we were curious to see what he had to say. Alas, he doesn’t tell us anything we haven’t seen before. He points out to his drooling fans what we already know — the Oort cloud hasn’t yet been observationally confirmed. It’s the same stuff AIG said in the post to which we just linked. That’s not surprising. All creationist keep recycling the same old arguments.

The rev is wearing one of his bible-boy suits — with a necktie — and he’s still the cutest rev you’ve ever seen! The video is his usual 90-second presentation — before the commercial. Go ahead, click over to WND and watch it.

As we always do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules. Okay, the comments are open. Go for it!

Copyright © 2015. 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

13 responses to “Rev. David Rives — The Oort Cloud

  1. So Rives says the Oort Cloud should be treated as a phantom cloud till science either proves or disproves its existence.

    Yah, that’s good. Same way I treat the Intelligent Designer. While we wait for proof, we can examine what’s reasonable to suppose.

    Hmm. Let’s see. Is it more likely that the object the Philae comet lander is resting on is
    A) a piece of natural material flung across planetary orbits by gravitational interactions among similar objects in a remote part of the solar system, or
    B) a missile thrown by a supernatural Intelligent Designer?

    Somebody quick call William of Occam and see what he thinks.

  2. William of Occam reports that it isn’t even a close shave.

    And: he likes the cloud so much, he bought the whole Oort.

  3. I thought I had read something about Oort cloud objects being detected, checking it out it was two long period comets that hadn’t shown signs of cometary activity so they should appear as they did when they were in the Oort cloud.
    It would require a huge telescope in the order of kilometers wide to view one, so I guess Rives thought it was safe to make the video.

  4. Of course, the Oort cloud’s material is no more likely to evaporate as long as it stays there than ice is likely to boil away in your freezer, and for the same reason. Only when a chunk of it is gravitationally perturbed in such a way as to realign its orbit so as to bring it much closer to the sun does it begin to evaporate.

    It really irritates me when creationist “experts” peddle this kind of stuff to their suckers, ahem, audiences. It shows their utter contempt not just for the facts but for their followers–for I strongly suspect that quite a few professional creationists don’t believe their own claims but rather are in it for the money and attention.

  5. The Boy-Rev’s alternative must be that God made comets, positioned them somewhere relatively nearby, and set them in motion such that they pass by unpredictably – sometimes hitting the earth or other planets.

    Unfortunately, the theology behind this capricious act by an apparently mischievous god is never explained.

  6. Ken Phelps

    It’s entirely possible that the Rev and his fans have the Oort cloud confused with the iCloud.

  7. Stephen Kennedy

    Troy is correct that a telescope that would be able to see objects as distant, small and dim as those in the Oort Cloud is way beyond any conceivable telescope technology at the moment. In order to look for Kuiper belt objects, which are much larger and closer than the Oort Cloud. for New Horizons to visit after Pluto, astronomer’s have been using the Japanese government owned but located in Hawaii Subaru Telescope. This reflecting telescope has a mirror with an 8.3 meter aperture and is the largest telescope in the world made from a single piece of glass for the primary mirror. Even with a telescope of this size and the excellent seeing at Muana Kea the search has been very difficult.

    We can infer the distance of the Oort Cloud by observing comets coming into the Inner Solar System from all directions and orbits calculated to have aphelions of 50,000 AU and periods of millions of years.

    However, it is impossible to explain any of this to a creationist.

  8. No no, I need much better from the Good Rev before he gets reinstated in my favour. At least I’d expected him to use his fancy telescope, hunting down the Oort Cloud and finding nothing.
    In the meantime he’s lying his cute creationist ass off.


    After explaining why the Oort Cloud is such a problem for YECers this site points out there is evidence indeed:

    Here the evidence is presented in simple language. Also note the creacrap “rebuttal”.

    A bit more extensive:

    As for the “never observed” argument – I doubt if the Good Rev ever has directly observed a light foton as well. Is that phantom science as well then?

  9. IMHO, to a creationist, a creationist should look on this as another example of “How do you know, were you there?”

  10. I enjoyed this quote by AIG provided in the aforementioned article on AIG’s comet claim:

    “Given the loss rates, it’s easy to compute a maximum age of comets. That maximum age is only a few million years.”

    Hold on, a sec. I smell something…could it be…uniformitarianism? How do you know that water evaporates at a constant temperature over millions of years, Mr. Ham? Were you there?

  11. For the IFFZ, I think we should savour the prospects ahead for the DI’s new series, which they announce as follows :

    We are delighted to inaugurate a new series, “Talk to the Fossils,” by our friend and colleague Denyse O’Leary.

    They certainly aren’t short of fossilised thinkers to interview amongst their staff and ‘Fellows’!

  12. @Paul D.: Good catch re: AiG. They say max age of comets is only “a few million years”? Hmm. They also say the universe is only 6,000 years old.

    Oh, well. They never claimed to be good at math.

  13. Aren’t comets used by mythical being to communicate omens of various kinds to makind?

    How could they allow them to run out and lose such an important (and concise) method of communication with their followers and various doomed innocent bystanders?

    The young Rev. Dave is clearly not looking at the big picture.