Rev. David Rives — Living Fossils

Once again, the Drool-o-tron™ startled 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: Do ‘living fossils’ disprove evolution? The actual title of the rev’s video is “Living Fossils”

The rev tells us we find living creatures today that look like ancient fossils. How did they survive unchanged? He mentions the Coelacanth, which evolutionists believed to have gone extinct 66 million years ago, but the rev says they’re still around and virtually unchanged from their fossil ancestors. That’s millions of years of stasis! It makes no sense in terms of evolution. But that’s because they didn’t evolve! The rev explains that they were created fully formed, and their ancestors were buried in the Flood.

The rev is still wearing the same gray bible-boy suit he’s been wearing for the last couple of months, and still without a necktie. Nobody cares. He’s the cutest rev you’ve ever seen! This video is about three minutes long before the commercial at the end. 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 © 2017. 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

23 responses to “Rev. David Rives — Living Fossils

  1. IFFZ
    I just got my “Reports of the National Center for Science Education”. They tell us that there are 3500 members, 510 sustaining members, 523 grad student members. There ought to be a lot more members. It’s free for grad students.

  2. Arthur C. Clark’s Clarke’s First Law:

    When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

    To this we can add, Coyote’s Law:

    When a creationist makes a comment on a scientific topic, that creationist is invariably wrong.

  3. @Coyote
    Clarke, not Clark. I know, pedantic of me, but . . .

    He mentions the Coelacanth, which evolutionists believed to have gone extinct 66 million years ago, but the rev says they’re still around and virtually unchanged from their fossil ancestors.

    Well, the rev’s actually right on this: biologists did indeed believe Old Fourlegs was extinct until a specimen was fished out of the sea. Of course, the rev’s bonkers when he claims this “stasis” is a disproof of evolution; crocs haven’t changed that much over the past many million years either.

  4. realthog:
    “…crocs haven’t changed that much over the past many million years either.”

    Likewise blue-green algae. And BTW, thanks for being a stickler for accuracy (Clark – Clarke). This is an important blog; we don’t want to give the likes of the DI, AiG, David Rives, etc., etc. any excuse to discredit it. We shouldn’t need to apologize for making corrections — it makes us all the better for it.

  5. Clark ≠ Clarke. Right.

    Wish I could blame the spelling corrector. But I guess I’ll have to take the blame myself–me and my co-authors, Ernest and Julio….

  6. robnorman2015

    The living fossils thing is misleading and creationists make the most of it. Modern coelacanths are NOT identical to their fossil relatives. Neither are other oft quoted examples. Evolutionary theory has no clause dictating that progress MUST be made over time, so it’s a cheap straw man to tout stasis as a “problem”.

  7. I believe that the American people are getting the government they want. They want climate change deniers at the Department of Energy. They want
    opponents of the EPA ‘s mission running the EPA. And they want a Secretary of Education(DeVos) dedicated to providing taxpayer dollars to private and church run schools so they cn comfortably have their children taught that
    the Bible is a science textbook. They voted for this because they want these things.

  8. Take a look at WIkiquote.org for selected quotes of H.L.Mencken.

  9. och will says: “I believe that the American people are getting the government they want. They want climate change deniers at the Department of Energy. They want …their children taught that the Bible is a science textbook. They voted for this because they want these things.”

    That’s true for some single-issue voters, but if we ignore the people and blogs that focus on those issues, and look instead at the actual speeches and debates of the candidates, I seriously doubt that those were the principal (or secondary) considerations of most voters. I may be naive, but I suspect the main considerations were defense, immigration, the size of government, the national debt, taxes, and the economy.

  10. och will

    They voted for this [a reactionary political programme] because they want these things.

    Some did indeed so vote, I don’t doubt. But it seems plenty were casting their votes more against one candidate than with any great enthusiasm for the other. I am pretty confident that Our Curmudgeon, in casting his vote for the GOP ticket, did not do so out of a desire to further the specific reactionary agenda you’ve outlined, which I agree is indeed to be resisted. I would hope the Constitution is robust enough to withstand the assault from the religious crazies, but far less confident that Trump won’t introduce dangerous reversals of the current efforts to curb climate change.

    It’s very like the Brexit vote here: the 52% who voted Leave were not all voting for the same thing at all, as has become increasingly apparent. And I doubt if the Brexit that is finally achieved will be satisfactory to more than a minority of the folks who voted for it. But we shall see. We are we are and have to make the best of it. Prepare for the worst, but hope for the best…

  11. Eeek! I was composing my post, which is now redundant, while Curmy was posting his. Apologies, and feel free to delete mine.

    [*Voice from above*] Redundancy is not among the worst of your faults.

  12. I am not at all knowleable about Brexit, so I feel free to offer my opinion.
    What will happen is that the majority will be displeased with the result, and then complain that that was not what they voted for: Don’t blame me! And then vote for a more populist and less responsible government. And repeat until all but the dullest realize that something is wrong with that.

  13. I may be naive, but I suspect the main considerations were defense, immigration, the size of government, the national debt, taxes, and the economy.

    Perhaps, but they can’t simply disown the science denial, the racism, and all the rest. That was quite plainly part of the package they chose to vote for.

  14. @ TomS Despite your disclaimer, you actually have a far, far better grasp of Brexit than at least half our government ministers charged with implementing it. 🙂

  15. @Megalonyx
    Too right! And I’d say, judging by her speech this week, that that includes T. May.

  16. Michael Fugate

    There is a somewhat comical letter to the editor in today’s LA Times from someone who voted for Trump already suffering buyer’s remorse. The writer somehow thought Trump would act more presidential once elected – apparently unfamiliar with the old saying “a leopard can’t change its spots”.

  17. I see on the Australian Broadcasting Commission news this evening several persons of weighty presence and mien of whom I had never before heard, delivering ponderous pronouncements to the effect that Trump’s refusal to place his business interests into a genuinely blind trust runs afoul of every conflict-of-interest law in the book, including the very Constitution itself. It is confidently expected that this will cause Trump’s impeachment quite early on. Which will leave Pence as President.

    Oh, joy!

  18. robn beat me to it but i will add that Davis is a dimwit….there aint no such thing as a “living fossil”!!! You are living, dead, and once dead can become a fossil if things are aligned ok. Just as there is no such thing as “A transition fossil” all creatures are in transition continuously.

  19. @Dave While I don’t expect Trump to serve out an entire term (and the reasons run the gamut (assassination, death/incapacitation from a health ailment, resigning, or impeachment) impeachment especially early on is very unlikely. Trump’s business dealings and other nefarious problems would only cause impeachment if he does something else that makes him a complete pariah to the nation. The Republican House isn’t going to impeach him, no way no how. If Republicans lose the House in the midterms a Democratic impeachment is possible, but unlikely unless the Senate turns as well (which is unlikely). (Of course take my predictions with a grain of salt I predicted a Hillary victory.)

  20. @Michael Fugate: The writer somehow thought Trump would act more presidential once elected – apparently unfamiliar with the old saying “a leopard can’t change its spots”.
    Checkmate, atheists! The Bible was right! Jeremiah 13:23 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/jer/13.html)

  21. The trouble with the Brexit referendum was the misleading way the alternatives were offered. Obviously, “Leave” means that all darkies and foreigners must immediately LEAVE. No surprise then, that a lot of pro-Brexit voters are disappointed.

  22. Ceteris Paribus

    @jimroberts:
    I will see your Jeremiah 13:23 prophecy, and raise the GOP/Trump gambit to Jeremiah 13:27