Rev. David Rives — Evolution of Stars

The Drool-o-tron™ has been quiet lately, but suddenly it aroused us with its sirens and flashing lights. The blinking letters of its wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND). The Drool-o-tron™ had found the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries.

Our computer was locked onto this headline at WND: Stars cannot form without ‘miraculous’ input. That’s something we couldn’t ignore! The actual title of the video is “Why you should believe in creation, and not evolution.”

The rev tells us that the term “evolution” refers to a number of things, and in this video he’s going to discuss stellar evolution. He talks about the theory that gas clouds contract to form stars. But — get this! — no one has ever seen it happen! Not only that, but gas in a vacuum is static. It doesn’t contract! It requires a miracle to form stars! That means stellar evolution is nonsense!

Jeepers — he’s right! We can’t think of any reason — none at all — why a gas cloud would contract. This video is amazing!

The rev is really dressed up for this one. He’s wearing one of his bible-boy suits with a red necktie. He’s the cutest rev you’ve ever seen! The video is longer than usual. It lasts for almost two and a half minutes — before the commercial at the end. It’s one of the rev’s best. Go ahead, click over to WND.

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

Copyright © 2016. 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

29 responses to “Rev. David Rives — Evolution of Stars

  1. Jeepers — he’s right! We can’t think of any reason — none at all — why a gas cloud would contract.

    I’m glad to see you’re treating the Rev.’s claim with all the gravity it deserves.

  2. Wonder what he thinks of all the supernovas that have been observed in a universe he believed to be 6,000 yrs old?

  3. I wonder if Intelligent Falling could account for star formation.

  4. Stars simply can’t evolve because no new information can be added to their internal DNA! It requires an intelligent designer to add that information, that’s the so obvious answer.

  5. I’ve looked through telescopes a lot as well. Unfortunately the act did not grant a degree in physics and cosmology to me as it did for the good rev. I don’t think anyone has ever suggested that a star can only form from gaseous state material. To assume any region of space contains only a specific element or group of elements that would only be in a specific stable state seems unreasonable. But again I don’t have a degree in cosmology.

  6. I don’t respect him as an amateur astronomer. On one of his episodes of “Creationism in the 21st Century” he didn’t know the difference between Jupiter’s moons and a shadow transit. It might just be that he is exclusive to deep sky objects but he should not be considered an authority in astronomy.
    It is absurd that star formation requires a miracle.
    I notice David Rives no longer offers his shows (“Creationism in the 21st Century”) for free, he wants to charge $14.95 for the DVD. Ha ha ha ha good luck David.

  7. Stephen Kennedy

    The Rev’s Meade 16″ (0.406 meter aperture) Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope is fairly large by amateur standards but is tiny compared to the 8 to 10 meter telescopes used by professional astronomers.

    His own astrophotographs taken with his own telescope are actually pretty low quality. The Meade 16″ SCT has never performed at the level that would be expected of that aperture but his images look like they were taken with a 4″ telescope by a rank beginner.

  8. @realthog: You imply that gravity is responsible for star formation. Evidently, Rives doesn’t agree with you, because he knows stars are made of hydrogen, and everyone knows hydrogen rises, so Rives just knows it’s impossible for gravity to be involved in star formation. He believes hydrogen is anti-gravitational.😉

  9. The mountain didn’t magically form in the last ten minutes. No, it magically formed 6000 years ago. Apparently.

  10. Isn’t it astonishing how dilettante amateurs with absolutely no credentials whatsoever in the subjects they address, nor any record of research or study of them at all, can yet manage to confound experts who have spent decades coming to an understanding of the phenomena concerned?

    Why didn’t all these astronomers and professors and scientists and physicists and what-all ask themselves the simple question: why don’t I see gas clouds contracting under gravity? Why would I think that they do?

    I mean, really. How hard is that?

  11. Stephen Kennedy: Yes I noticed his images aren’t all that great, I see amateur images much better all the time on much smaller equipment.. Maybe he needs to collimate. No way you’d get it in a 4″ scope though
    His own image of the Andromeda galaxy refutes his words, lanes of dust in a galaxy don’t just dissipate.
    He also makes it sound like he discovered the supernova in M82.

  12. Wait a second. Isn’t earth sitting in the middle of a vacuum? How does all that air stay down here?!

  13. Aaahhh! My favourite creationist is back with a bang! No doubt I have to watch his newest video a couple of times again, so many excellent points does he make in such a short time.
    At the moment I only have one.

    “we never observed a star forming”
    My dear Good Rev, could you be so kind to address

    http://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-observe-the-birth-of-a-massive-star-in-the-milky-way/

    ??

  14. Scientists claim that some people live for a hundred years or more. I’ve never seen anyone be born, live a hundred years, then die: so I don’t believe that can happen.

  15. Perhaps the rev can describe a case in which someone actually witnessed a star poof into existence through miraculous creation.

    SK – Small aperture short focal length apochromatic refractors are excellent for deep sky photography. They require longer exposure times, obviously, but that can be accomplished by stacking numerous individual exposures. A 4″ refractor is not a “rank beginner” telescope, although I agree that the rev is most likely in that category as a user of telescopes of whatever size.

    We baby boomers recall when almost all amateurs had either a 4″ refractor or a 6-8″ newtonian (often home made). The refractor of choice was the Unitron, which is still a beautiful instrument.

    Small refractors are also excellent “grab-and-go” telescopes. I have a 11″ SCT, but my 4″ refractor is so much easier to carry into the yard on the spur of the moment that it gets used a lot more.

    With respect to the rev, though, just having a big telescope doesn’t make him an skilled observer. As in other things, it’s not the size that matters, it’s how you use it.

  16. I would guess he would say that if you have a uniform field (I don’t want to say ‘cloud’ since that implies a boundary) of hydrogen it cannot contract on its own because there is no gradient. Which is probably true. However, the hydrogen is not uniformly spaced and there is a smaller fraction of primordial lithium which might actually act as centers of star formation.

  17. For the IFFZ: Stalin ‘used secret laboratory to analyse Mao’s excrement’

    Even Creationist bathroom voyeurs don’t go that far!

  18. Megalonyx, we do essentially the same thing by analyzing creationists’ blog posts.

  19. Our Curmudgeon is many things–but I never before thought of him as a Stalininst

  20. The question should be what could possibly prevent a sufficiently large mass of gas from contracting under self-gravitation, with the interior regions undergoing adiabatic compression until the temperature and density reach the point where fusion begins.

  21. longie!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where ya been?

  22. @Megalonyx: Would that be a Stalininst from Minsk?

  23. @Anonymous: The usual proposal for initiating gravitational contraction in an otherwise uniform mass of hydrogen in space is a pressure wave from a supernova explosion. At any rate, The Rev knows not of what he speaks — gas clouds do contract to eventually form stars, as longshadow states above.

    So, David Rives, if you’re reading this — read up on astronomy to learn why astronomers can state without reservation that stars are indeed forming today, as they have been for the last 13 billion years, give or take a week or so.

  24. longie!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where ya been?

    I lurk; therefore I am.

  25. Pope retiredsciguy seeks clarification:

    Would that be a Stalininst from Minsk?

    Actually, I was thinking more of a McConaghie-style bathroom stall-inist

  26. Got a comment and phone number on my blog from David Rives – “Call me – we need to talk.” Thankfully it was not THE David Rives but David A Rives who wanted to reminisce about a mentor we had in common long ago and far away. I asked him if he know about THE David Rives, and his response was something like “Oh, that crackpot preacher??”🙂