Hambo Tells the True Age of Saturn’s Rings

You have probably marveled at the sight of Saturn’s rings, but did you ever wonder about their age? Sure you have. And now your question will be answered by none other than Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

At the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry, ol’ Hambo just posted this: How Old are Saturn’s Rings? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Naturalistic scientists [The fools!] disagree on the age of Saturn’s rings. NASA’s Cassini spacecraft had a planned crash into the planet in 2017. The data that it gave was interpreted as evidence that Saturn’s pristine rings formed just 200 million years ago in the evolutionary timescale of our solar system. But a new study disagrees.

Hambo links to this at the website of the University of Colorado: Think Saturn’s rings are old? Not so fast. The title is misleading, because the article concludes that the rings were “most likely to have formed early in the solar system.” You may find this article at PhysOrg to be more informative: Researchers say the age of Saturn’s rings is difficult to determine. Okay, let’s see what Hambo says:

It states that “processes that preferentially eject dusty and organic material out of Saturn’s rings could make the rings look much younger than they actually are.” This study says the rings are 4.5 billion years old.

Wow — Hambo gave it to us straight! Is he developing a respect for science? Well, not quite. After that he tells us:

Starting with God’s Word, we know neither of these dates above is correct!

You gotta have the right starting point! He continues:

How did these beautiful rings form? Well, evolutionists [The hell-bound sinners!] believe they formed from asteroids crashing into the planet or its moons, causing a circle of debris. Or perhaps Saturn’s strong tidal forces tore apart a satellite. But the data from Cassini showed that the gravitational pull of these rings is too light for them to have lasted billions of years and that they are also too clean to be that age. The rings are pristine and beautiful.

Ooooooooooooh! They’re pristine and beautiful — and that means they’re young — just like Earth’s moon. Oh, wait — that thing looks ancient! What’s going on here? We’re sure Hambo has an explanation for everything, so let’s read on:

The rings don’t point to billions of years and random chance processes. They point to God’s creative handiwork. The reason these rings are still so pristine is that they were created by God just 6,000 years ago, on day four of creation week.

Ooooooooooooh! It makes perfect sense! Another excerpt:

Naturalistic scientists have a difficult time explaining these rings because they didn’t form naturalistically — they were created by God to display his glory.

Yes — oh yes! That explains everything! And now we come to the end:

Remember, God’s infallible account of origins in Genesis has never changed and never will. Man’s fallible beliefs about origins change continually!

Oh, Hambo — we’d be so lost without you!

Copyright © 2019. 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

17 responses to “Hambo Tells the True Age of Saturn’s Rings

  1. Let’s see if I’ve got this right — hambone’s favorite god-person (blessed be he/she/it) created Saturn’s rings to display his/her/its glory about 4,500 years (according to ham’s chrono-mythology) before any of his/her/its adoring subjects could appreciate them. Clever boy/girl/thing that god-person.

  2. chris schilling

    Yeah, if God wanted us to marvel at the beauty of His handiwork, why didn’t He bloody well make Saturn’s rings visible to the naked eye? Why not just give me high-powered telescopic eyes capable of seeing that far?

    It’s a missed opportunity on God’s part. I’m stuck with Ken’s fallible word.

  3. Since Genesis says the celestial bodies were made for marking the time and seasons, how do Saturn’s rings contribute to that function?

  4. An where in the Bible does it mention planets and orbital rings?

  5. There is no distinction made between planets and stars in the Bible. Among the few individually named heavenly bodies, the only onject that we call a planet is the Morning Star, i. e. Venus. None of the ring systems (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) are mentioned in the Bible.

  6. Abeastwood … I’ve found that when referring to Hambone’s gawd it is clearer to say S/He/IT is a better descriptor.

  7. Excellent! Just two blogposts ago TomS asked me:

    “And how does one potray “reference to one’s holy book” when there is, in fact, no such reference in said holy book?”
    Reliable as Ol’Hambo always is – truly the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else – he immediately provides the answer. I quote:

    “Remember, God’s infallible account of origins in Genesis has never changed and never will. Man’s fallible beliefs about origins change continually!”
    And if we click a bit further:

    “We already know that, because the Creator documented his own eyewitness account in Genesis 1. On Day Four, he made all the heavenly bodies.”
    And that’s just two example of my “IDiots don’t refer to their favourite Holy Book”.
    Of course we should keep in mind (and our dear SC never fails to remind us) that Ol’Hambo excels as much in science as in philosophy and theology.

  8. @Abeastwood also mixes up IDiots and YECers:

    “Clever boy/girl/thing that god-person.”
    Ol’Hambo being the world’s holiest man etc. never is confused about things like gender. His god – called YHWH – undoubtedly is white, male and bearded. In fact YHWH looks quite a lot like Ol’Hambo himself. Of course the latter is too modest to formulate it this way; rather he being the world’s holiest man etc. will explaining by concluding that he’s created in the image of YHWH.

    @ChrisS is ungrateful and disrespectful: “why didn’t He bloody well ….”
    ‘Cuz Original Sin and stuff. Be happy with what you’ve got – YHWH grounded science, so that Hans Lipperhey could invent a telescope!

  9. chris schilling

    God’s creative juices never stop flowing. He gave Uranus some rings, as well — both out there in space, and down here on Earth, where they’re most needed. “Holy S/He/IT!” as L.Long might say.

    @FrankB
    I know, I’m an ungrateful wretch. Don’t worry, I’ll get what’s coming to me in the Lake of Fire.

  10. Scene at a Creation Symposium:

    A: Creation scientists have for the first time determined the age of Saturn’s ring system.
    B: Really? What did they find?
    A: After meticulous observations and elaborate calculations the age was determined to be 6,000 years, with a margin of error of +/- 50 years.
    B: Wow! Isn’t that exactly the age predicted by the Bible?
    A: Indeed! Cutting-edge science has once again proven the reliability and truthfulness of the Bible.

  11. @hans435
    What about that +/- 50 years?
    Does this mean that there is a margin of error included in the Biblical text!?

  12. TomS: not an explicit margin of error, but one of the many implicit or hidden margins of error.

  13. @abeastwood
    Yes, not explicit.
    But as long as the creationists bring up the imperfectons of science, one is permitted to bring up the implicit margin of error in the Bible.
    And as far as the explicit, there is 1 Corintians 7.

  14. @TomS
    A margin of error makes it more scientific.

  15. @Hans: no margin of error (either small or large) will turn the Bible into a scientific textbook.

  16. Theodore Lawry

    Ken Ham knows when the rings were made. Was he there?

  17. Remember, God’s infallible account of origins in Genesis has never changed and never will. Man’s fallible beliefs about origins change continually!” . . .

    “We already know that, because the Creator documented his own eyewitness account in Genesis 1. On Day Four, he made all the heavenly bodies.”

    Ahem. Where’s the proof that “the Creator” documented anything in the Bible? It’s generally recognized even by nutjob fundamentalists that human beings wrote it all down, and as Ham and his Hambones keep reminding us, the words of man are fallible.