Rev. David Rives — Darwin’s Bait & Switch

The Drool-o-tron™ has been quiet lately, but suddenly its sirens and flashing lights alerted us to the latest video from the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries, posted at the website of WorldNetDaily (WND).

Our computer was locked onto this headline: Evolution based on ‘bait and switch’ science. The video is actually titled: “Spontaneous Generation: The Foundation of Evolution.”

We can’t determine if the rev is still in South Africa. He’s wandering around some shore line, but he’s no longer dressed like Indiana Jones, and we’re not told where he is. It doesn’t matter. Wherever he goes, he’s the world’s cutest rev!

He tells us that people used to believe in the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter. Then along came Darwin’s theory, which involved a classic bait and switch. Based on his observation of finches on the Galapagos Islands — which were mere inter-species varieties — he pulled the old switcheroo and argued that animals could change into completely different kinds.

But Darwin can’t fool the rev! He dismisses Darwin’s trickery because — get this — it requires a leap of faith!

The video is about two minutes long (before the commercial at the end). Go ahead, click over to WND and watch it. It’s always a pleasure to see a great mind at work.

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 © 2018. 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 — Darwin’s Bait & Switch

  1. For the Free Fire zone, I bring up the subject of geocentrism. In particular, the doctrine that the Earth is not making a daily rotation, but the Sun, Moon and stars are making a daily revolution about the Earth. (Ignoring, for the moment, the question of whether the Earth is a planet of the Solar System.)
    ISTM that the recent GAIA space mission has provided a unique way of confirming the rotation of the Earth.
    GAIA’s mission has been to map the nearby galaxy in unprecedented precision by measuring the annual parallax of the stars from a platform which is not tied to the Earth. GAIA is in an orbit around the Sun. The question of the rotation of the Earth does not enter into the observations from GAIA.
    Now, it has been well known for quite some tie that the Earth’s motion is not a simple, smooth, regular, unvarying rotation. There are a number of predictable and unpredictable variations in that motion. This means that, in the geocentric model, the stars are moving in a rather complicate “dance” around the Earth. So be it, says the geocentrist. In fact, some of the irregularities are quite small, and can only be measured by precision instruments.
    So GAIA appears on the scene. If the stars are making this complicated dance around the Earth, then GAIA presents a unique platform to measure those motions, independent of our assumptions about the motion – or lack of motion – of the Earth.
    Of course, the scientists involved with GAIA can’t be bothered with testing the “hypothesis” of the rotation of the Earth. But it seems to me that if the Earth were motionless, the interpretation of the GAIA data would quickly show anomalies. Of course, there is no difficulty for a geocentrist to believe that the silence of the GAIA scientists is just another case of the conspiracy of silence against geocentrism.
    I am asking anyone who is familiar with the data of the GAIA mission to take a moment to comment on my reasoning.
    Am I correct in thinking that the data of the GAIA mission are capable of distinguishing the daily rotation of the Earth from the supposed daily motion of the stars? Am I correct in assuming that the GAIA data are inconsistent with the geocentric model?
    I know that these questions are beneath serious consideration by a professional astronomer. But please, there are people who are serious about geocentrism.

  2. “Go ahead, click over to WND and watch it. It’s always a pleasure to see a great mind at work.”
    I tried it twice, both on IE and Opera, and had to listen to the Good Rev and some female voice about abortion (I think) at the same time. So I did a little experiment: I watched the video with the sound turned off. The absolute highlight was the cartoon frog popping up at the shore. Those evilutionist fools don’t even realize frogs don’t like salt water!

  3. “an Intellectual Free Fire Zone”
    I’m grateful for having the opportunity to remind our dear SC that he has voted another Big Spender into the White House:

    That’s so much more important that wasting money on a decent health care system for instance.

  4. @TomS: OK, let me accept the challenge and defend geocentrism. I understand a couple of things about math and motion is described by mathematical equations.

    “But it seems to me that if the Earth were motionless, the interpretation of the GAIA data would quickly show anomalies.”
    What would those anomalies be? Motion being relative we are free to choose the origin of our coordinate system. A priori there is no reason why a coordinate system with the Earth being motionless would give different results than coordinate systems with the Sun in the origin, the centre of the Milky Way or any other point in our Universe. Yes, mathematically describing the dance of the stars quickly becomes insanely complicated, but that’s hardly an argument. Geometric transformations make it possible to switch from a geocentric coordinate system to a solar one. I don’t see why those anomalies would pose a principled problem, no matter how difficult the practical ones.
    The big problem with geocrentrism of course is that it results in revolution velocities higher than the speed of light. That’s not a very good argument either, because it may point at an incoherence of Relativity. That’s highly inconvenient, but that doesn’t mean it’s incorrect.
    Btw you should distinguish rotation from revolution. Revolution is orbital, ie one body moving around another. Rotation means turning around an axis through or near your own body (to make things more confusing: we Dutch use the same word for both ….). It would surprise me if religious geocentrists ever had thought about it, but a rotating Earth perfectly can be in the centre of a (mathematical) model of our Universe. I have a hard time imagining how the motion of the Sun would look like with a rotating Earth in the centre, but that of course is not any better than creacrappers having a hard time imagining one species into another or a stairs sceptic imaging climbing more than three steps.

  5. Thatk you.
    I have previously argued about the complexities of the “dance” of the stars. I realize that mere complexity is not enogh to convince geocentrists. (See the argument in article on Geocentrism. for a brief survey of the complexity of the “dance”, which is not particularly relvant to my present argument.)
    What I am argueing here is that we knw the variations on the motions of the GAIA mission, and that those variations are not related to the variations of the rotation of the Earth (in the helicoentric model – or the variations of the dance of the stars, in the geocentric model).
    Suppose that we have long-term observations of the star Sirius from an Earth observatory. The raw data say that the angle to Sirius changes over time, so that it changes in 360 degrees in about one day. But the rotation of the Earth (in heiocentric terms) changes in a complicated way. (The speed of the rotation varies, and the axis of the rotation also varies.)
    Now consider the observations from GAIA. However GAIA turns, it doesn’t trun the same way that the Earth turns, so the angle to Sirius does not participate in the same variations as the Earth-based observations. So, if the “dance” of the stars is real, that would be observed also by GAIA. This is the anomaly that the helicentric-believing scientists would have to account for, IMHO.
    I believe that the GAIA scentists did not observe this anomaly. And I believe that if they had, they would have to admit that. Unless they are, of course, committed to the massive conspiracy of scientists to protect heliocentrism. The conspiracy including even most YECs (who claim Biblical authority for heliocentrism) and ID advocates.
    Again, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to make mysef clear. And even more so, do be corrected in my msunderstandings.

  6. Just to clarify a few points about geocentrism. Yes, they are quite familiar with the details of the motions of the Solar System. For example, they realize the differences between the solar day of 24 hours and the stellar day, about 4 minutes less, they know about the precession of the equinoxes, retrograde motions, etc. They accept the dimensions of the solar system, which includes the fact that Neptune is at a distance of about 4 light-hours (which makes its speed in a daily geocentric orbit of the Earth about the speed of light – they can account for that). Their geocentric model of the Solar System is essentially Tycho Brahe’s. They are aware that they could compromise and accept the rotation of the Earth at a fixed place at the center of the universe, but they insist on no rotation as well as no revolution.

  7. All the anomalies you mentioned can be mathematically treated the way I described, so shrug.

    “Yes, they are quite familiar with the details of the motions of the Solar System.”
    That’s not what I wrote. It’s always a bad sign if someone goes on and on and on and on and on, while only one small part is relevant:

    “They are aware that they could compromise and accept the rotation of the Earth at a fixed place at the center of the universe, but they insist on no rotation as well as no revolution.”
    Everything above this quote is superfluous, which is a strong sign that you’re rather convincing yourself than explaining your view to someone else. Still mathematical relativity applies to both rotation and revolution.

  8. Real hard-core geocentrists lost their argument long ago. They imagined that the stars were just points of light on a fixed sphere surrounding Earth and nearby celestial bodies. The discovery that the stars move relative to one another blew that out of the sky. (Except,of course, for those who insist that such measurements have been faked by the heliocentrist conspiracy.)

    Re Frank B., who does address this issue, Occam’s razor comes into play: it’s much easier to account for the apparent motion of the planets and the stars if one doesn’t assume a fixed, stationary Earth at the center of the universe, so there’s no (non-religious) reason not to dispense with that assumption. (Occam’s razor is uselessly dull when it comes to religion, which is based on faith first and facts later if at all.)

  9. In the geocentric model, the stars are moving around the Earth. The regular pattern is that they are making an orbit in about one day. But there are small changes in those orbits over time. See, for example. the Wikipedia article on Chandler wobble. Any observatory on Earth can detect the Chander wobble.
    The standard model interprets changes in the apparent orbits of the stars as
    being due to changes in the rotaton of the Earth.
    If the changes to the apparent orbits of the stars are real, not the result of changes in the Earth, then an observatory which is independent of the Earth will also detect the same changes. (Yes, it is mathematically possible that the
    space telescope could also change its orentation in synch with the Chandler wobble and such.)
    The GAIA space mission is designed to make very precise measurements of the positions of the stars, in order to determine their annual parralax. (GAIA has an annual orbit of the Sun.) Therefore I believe (and I may be mistaken) that GAIA is capable of detecting the penomenon that I describe – that it can give us an independent measurement of the apparent – or real – motion of the stars. (To repeat myself, yes, it is mathematically possible that GAIA could simulate the apparent changes that are conventionally attributed to the changes in the motion of the Earth. Or are we to posit some force pervading the universe which not only changes the motions of the stars and also works on GAIA to cancel out the changes to the stars?)
    Now, I don’t know whether or not GAIA scientists have taken account of the phenomenon. I don’t know whether the precision of GAIA can discriminate between (my naive) geocentric model and the standard model. I don’t know whether my reasoning is correct.

  10. @Eric Lipps
    Several years ago, I attended a geocentric conference. Most of the speakers were qite aware of current astronomy. They were aware of the argument that FrankB makes that the mathematics works equally well. Some woulld invoke the General Theory of Relavity. I must admit that I cannot argue with that. (Except that this seems to replace “the Bible is wrong when it says that the Earth is motionless” with “the Bible is meaningless when it says that the
    Earth is motionless”.)
    They did not take the postion that there was a conspiracy which makes all of the data presented by astronomers worthless.