Ken Ham Talks About Life on Mars

We bring you the latest from the divinely inspired pen of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. His new post is titled Study: Mars “More Uninhabitable Than Previously Thought”. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

When you think of idyllic places to live, the dusty surface of Mars probably doesn’t come to mind.

It’s higher up on our list than northern Kentucky. Less drool. Anyway, after that delightful introduction he says:

Over the years, some scientists have discussed the possibility of colonizing this planet. The Red Planet, while beautiful in its own way, certainly doesn’t have a welcome mat out, inviting life to come and thrive. Well, according to a new study, the surface of Mars is even more uninhabitable than previously thought.

Hambo links to an article from PhysOrg: Mars surface ‘more uninhabitable’ than thought: study, which says:

Hopes of finding life on Mars, at least on the surface, were dealt a blow Thursday by a study revealing that salt minerals present on the Red Planet kill bacteria. In lab tests on Earth, the compounds known as perchlorates killed cultures of the bacteria Bacillus subtilis, a basic life form, a research duo from the University of Edinburgh’s School of Physics and Astronomy reported.

Perchlorates, stable at room temperature, become active at high heat. Mars is very cold. In the new study, Jennifer Wadsworth and Charles Cockell showed the compound can also be activated by UV light, without heat, in conditions mimicking those on the martian surface. It killed bacteria within minutes, said the team, implying the planet was “more uninhabitable than previously thought.”

Why is that of interest to ol’ Hambo? He tells us:

It seems they won’t be finding life on the surface of our nearest celestial neighbor anytime soon (not that creationists were expecting it!). Based on all the observational evidence, it almost seems as if Mars was never designed for life in the first place! (I say this a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it’s an important point.)

Wait a minute! Hambo is extrapolating from “observational evidence” to theorize about why Mars was designed in the past. That’s a violation of his creationist concept of science. He’s always saying that science can’t tell us about the distant past — only the bible can do that. Anyway, he says it was “tongue-in-cheek.” He continues:

Even in its cursed state [scripture reference], everything about earth is designed for life — liquid water (and lots of it!), the perfect atmosphere, a generous amount of sunlight (but not too much!), minerals, tides, ocean currents to circulate nutrients, and so much more. It’s clear that earth was specially designed for life, unlike the other bodies in our universe.

Unlike his Martian conjecture, Hambo has solid evidence for that conclusion. Let’s read on:

Actually, I’m not the first person to say that! In his Word, God has told us that earth was formed to be inhabited. [Scripture reference.] But the other heavenly bodies were created for a very different purpose.

[Hambo quotes Genesis 1:14–15:] And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.”

This brings up an important point: Planets — as we understand that word — aren’t in the bible. Scripture mentions the “sun, the moon, and the stars,” but provides no substantive information about them. The Earth was created as the world — the only “world” mentioned. It isn’t described as a planet. The New Testament never mentions planets, and the Old Testament mentions them only once, in 2 Kings 23:5. According to the King James version:

And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.

But the ancients didn’t know what a planet was. They had no clue that they were spherical bodies that orbit their stars, as does the Earth. To them they were no different from the other stars, except that they moved around oddly — so they were called “wanderers.” The Greek word for “wanderer” is the origin of the word planet — and it was a big shock when Galileo said that Earth was just another planet that orbited the Sun.

Hambo is at a terrible disadvantage here. His one true source of scientific information is a blank slate, so he ends his post with this:

But earth and the heavenly bodies do both share a purpose — to bring glory to God and to point people toward him. [Scripture quote.] It’s unlikely that scientists will find life on Mars anytime soon, if at all. But the more we study what God has made, the more we see his glory and limitless wisdom and creativity.

Hambo doesn’t mention it, but the PhysOrg article he referred to isn’t quite so pessimistic. It says:

“If we want to find life on Mars, we have to take this into consideration and look at trying to find sub-surface life that wouldn’t be exposed to these conditions,” Wadsworth told AFP [undefined acronym]. … The fact that perchlorates killed B. subtilis in the presence of UV radiation did not necessarily mean that all other life forms would similarly die, said Wadsworth. Further tests would have to be done to confirm this.

So whether there is — or was — life on Mars isn’t known yet. But Hambo knows, because he’s so much wiser than the rest of us.

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

11 responses to “Ken Ham Talks About Life on Mars

  1. Even in its cursed state [scripture reference], everything about earth is designed for life — liquid water (and lots of it!), the perfect atmosphere, a generous amount of sunlight (but not too much!), minerals, tides, ocean currents to circulate nutrients, and so much more. It’s clear that earth was specially designed for life, unlike the other bodies in our universe.

    Ah, I see. Earth has life, the other known planets don’t (as far as we know), so “it’s clear” that our planet was deliberately made for life by You-Know-Who. No room here for our planet to have simply been lucky. But then, in Creation World, there is no “luck,” since nothing happens by chance — it’s all ordained by God or allowed to happen at Satan’s instigation.

    And of course the Hamster knows that no other world in the universe has life, and never mind that the universe is a very big place and the planets we’ve found all occupy the very small portion of it that we can observe well enough to detect planets if they’re there.

  2. But the universe is designed with the “Second Law of Thermodynamics” (as the creationists explain it), with “Conservation of Complex specified Information” (as ID tells us), which make anyplace, anytime in the existence of the natural universe so improbable as to be impossible for the appearance of life. Especially as the universe has only existed only less than 10,000 years – much less time than even evolutionists think is enough for the appearance of life.

  3. He sure seems to protest a lot…. I wonder why.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Study: Ham “More Idiotic Than Previously Thought”

  5. … it is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing
    Macbeth Act V Scene 5

  6. It’s clear that earth was specially designed for life, unlike the other bodies in our universe.
    Based on what? Pretty far-fetched assumption.
    Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.”
    I like this one, particularly the … for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,… part, that’s good old astrology for sure.

  7. Wadsworth told AFP [undefined acronym]

    You need to brave the dreaded ‘MSM’ more often, Curmy!

    AFP = Agence France-Presse

  8. The word translated as “planets”, by the way, is “mazaloth, as in “Mazal tov”; an alternative translation I’ve heard is “constellations”. I don’t know what the translation is based on. If that’s the only biblical occurrence of the word, intelligent guesswork? Or comparative philology?

  9. Paul, something like “worshipped/venerated celestial objects” probably does the best job here – the people in question had no concept of astronomical distances, and made no special distinction between stars and planets, at times venerated specific combinations of objects, and at times individual ones, planets and stars concluded.

  10. Thanks. How far back does the distinction between wandering stars (planets) and fixed stars go? Kings II is I think regarded as part ofthe Deuteronomic histories, which some textual critics (ever since Hobbes!) have been placing as shortly after the return from Babylon

  11. So the reason planets aren’t mentioned in the Bible much is because people didn’t know what they were. But I thought that the Bible was God’s word. Didn’t God know what planets were yet?

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s