Rev. David Rives Rebuts Criticism

A week ago we wrote Rev. David Rives — New Stars Are Never Seen. The rev said that that according to “cosmic evolution,” stars formed after the Big Bang, but he claimed that there has never been a sighting of a new star forming.

We mentioned some easy-to-find evidence to the contrary. Does the rev read the Curmudgeon’s blog? Maybe he does, because we’re not aware of anyone else who bothers to write about him. Anyway, he has a new video at WorldNetDaily. The Drool-o-tron™ didn’t call to us us with its sirens and flashing lights. Instead, it made what seemed to be a laughing sound.

The rev’s new video is heralded by WND with this headline: The problem with so-called ‘stellar nurseries’. The actual title of the video is “A Star Is Born.”

The rev discusses stellar nurseries, which we mentioned as evidence for the formation of new stars. The rev disagrees. He says — in less than one minute — that stars aren’t born in what astronomers call stellar nurseries. They’ve always been there, since Creation. Take a look at his video, and then make up your own mind.

The rev still hasn’t changed his clothes, but who cares? He’s the cutest rev you’ve ever seen! 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

10 responses to “Rev. David Rives Rebuts Criticism

  1. If one wished to argue like a Discoveroid (but I don’t so wish), one would tally up the number of acts of terrorism committed by Creationists vs. the number committed by ‘Darwinists’…

    But that would be a cheap shot.

  2. Poor little revie. Astronomers just won’t listen to him.

  3. Michael Fugate

    I wonder why this matters to him. Nothing in the Bible says stars can’t be born and die, does it?

  4. The cute rev isn’t good at science or analogy. It’s doubtful that fog condensed to form the mountain. And, wow, that god knows each of the billions and billions of the stars by name! Too bad the name of our star wasn’t revealed. But wait, I’ve heard this god also knows the location and future of every subatomic particle, and I’ve heard he/she/it knows all of the sins committed by the billions of people it supposedly created. I’m impressed with this dude’s memory!

  5. It doesn’t matter what anybody sees in the Bible, he knows what’s gotta be there.
    After all, nothing in the Bible says that there is micro-evolution but not macro-evolution.

  6. Well, of course, for stars to actually be born and to develop as astronomers say they do would take millions of years at the least. And we all know the universe has only been around for thousands. So there!

  7. But the claim, in part, was that a stellar mass of gas in space would expand, not contract. That claim was not backed up by evidence (“how do we know, were we there” – for the tens of thousands of years, if not longer), nor by Scriptural proof texts, nor by theoretical studies (the classic study “Jeans instability”, accomplished by Sir James Jeans in 1902, was not addressed in this video).

  8. “No star was born, it just became visible”.
    No comment necessary.

  9. The Rev. bases his argument on a line from Psalms 147. It’s the only line in the Psalm which mentions stars, and the entire poem is simply an ode about how great God is, not some revelation from a prophet. Rives is doing a bit of biblical quote-mining here.

    Besides, knowing all of the stars by name does not mean no new stars can form. One has nothing to do with the other.

  10. ISTM that the idea of knowing the name of something is to have power over it. So this is a way of saying that the stars are not independent deities. Something which the ancient Israelites would be worried about. The Babylonians paid a lot of attention to the stars, and their superior knowledge, astronomy and astrology, must have been a temptation.