Hambo Says There Was Never Any Life on Mars

We recently wrote NASA’s Search for Life on Mars — Futile?, predicting that Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else, would declare that life on Mars never existed, and NASA should stop wasting money on futile expeditions.

You may judge for yourself whether our prediction was correct, after you take a look at Hambo’s latest post at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry. It’s titled Was Your Great-Great-Great Grandma a Martian? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Last week “NASA’s most specialized life-hunting laboratory to date,” the rover Perseverance, successfully landed on the Red Planet. It’s a great feat of scientific ingenuity and achievement. Now that it is safely there, its mission begins as it rolls down what are supposedly ancient riverbeds in search of an answer to the question, “is there, or was there, life on Mars?”

Hambo displays his deep contempt for science when he says:

For many scientists, it is more than just a hope that microbial life will be found in clays on Mars. Some hope this will give insight into our own supposed evolutionary origins. For example, a recent popular science article quotes planetary scientist Christopher Carr who says, “There’s a number of things that have come to light only recently, which strongly support at least the plausibility of an origin of life on Mars and its potential transfer to Earth.”

It’s impossible to imagine Hambo’s disgust as he tells us:

In other words, your great-great-great (many more greats!) grandmother might have been a Martian — a microbial Martian anyway. (Bill Nye, “the Science Guy,” in our second unofficial debate [Link omitted!] as I took him through the Ark Encounter in 2016, suggested a similar possibility and said, “It is not crazy.”)

But Hambo appears to think it is crazy. He continues:

Now why do researchers like Carr believe this? Well, because the supposed conditions on the early Earth weren’t ideal for producing life. So they believe perhaps the conditions on Mars were better, and life managed to get from the red planet to our blue planet, where it gained a foothold and eventually evolved into all the varied lifeforms we have today. It’s just storytelling to try to rescue a false worldview.

Hambo’s ministry would never engage in “just storytelling” to “rescue a false worldview.” Let’s read on:

Other researchers disagree with the “life began on Mars” hypothesis, with one quoted as saying, “I find [moving the origin of life to Mars] to be a little too dramatic . . . Maybe we just need to understand some of the chemistry better. Maybe our model for the early Earth isn’t as good as it should be.”

Hambo gives us a better model:

I would certainly agree that their model for the early Earth “isn’t as good as it should be”! Since they’ve rejected what God’s Word says about our early Earth — created covered in water on the first day of creation week, given an atmosphere on day two, dry land and plants on day three, flying and swimming creatures on day five, and land animals and humans on day six — they won’t properly understand our origins, the world around us, or even the origin of Mars!

Hambo is so wise! Now he tells those foolish scientists what they should be doing:

If they truly want to develop a better model for “early Earth” (Earth as it existed at the beginning of creation week, when God created it from nothing, just six thousand years ago), we need to start with God’s perfect, unchanging Word, not the imaginations of human beings who weren’t there, don’t know everything, and frequently make mistakes.

Hooray for Hambo! Another excerpt:

So what will Perseverance find on Mars? Here’s what AiG astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner predicts [Link omitted!]:

Hambo ends his post with a big quote from Faulkner. This is a tiny bit of it:

The evolutionary worldview requires that life not be unique to the Earth. [ Evolutionists are fools!] However, special creation leads to the conclusion that life is unique in many ways, but especially in the one place in the universe where there is life. Hence, I expect all tests for the existence of life on Mars to be negative.

So there you are, dear reader. NASA’s new mission will discover nothing, and ol’ Hambo knew it all the time.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

11 responses to “Hambo Says There Was Never Any Life on Mars

  1. There was a research project reported in Eurekalert.org and other places “The Milky Way may be swarming with planets with oceans and continents like here on Earth” by researchers from the GLOBE Institute at the University of Copenhagen. ‘All our data suggest that water was part of Earth’s building blocks, right from the beginning. And because the water molecule is frequently occurring, there is a reasonable probability that it applies to all planets in the Milky Way. The decisive point for whether liquid water is present is the distance of the planet from its star’, says Professor Anders Johansen from the Centre for Star and Planet Formation who has led the study that is published in the journal Science Advances.

  2. No Hambone, the “evolutionary world view” (what ever that is) does not require that life that life is not unique to the Earth. But given the vast number of planets in the universe and the fact that as far as we know the laws of physics and chemistry are the same throughout the universe, the probability is almost certainly greater than zero, despite what your “special creation” hypothesis makes you think.

  3. As usual, Ham takes liberties with the scripture. Genesis does not say that the earth was “created covered in water on the first day of creation week”. On the contrary, it says that the earth was without form. The apparent belief was that the whole Universe was an endless chaos of water, out of which “God created the Heavens and the Earth”. That is, it seems that the water was already there.

    Nor does Genesis describe an “atmosphere”. It speaks of God dividing the waters by a word that is translated “firmament” in the KJV. Other translations differ, for there is no consensus on the full meaning of the Hebrew, but stripped of metaphor, it probably means only “sky”, considered as a dome over the Earth. It seems to imply some kind of solid barrier, since it keeps the waters out, until God opens the windows in it, to unleash the Flood.

    Again, I am bemused by the blithe insouciance with which Ham takes his own special editorial pencil to the words of Holy Writ – words which he says he regards as given by God Almighty Himself. Hubris, it is said, is “pride so great that it offends the gods”. Is there a word for a pride so great as to attempt to correct God?

  4. @Abeastwood: “the probability is almost certainly greater than zero”.
    Ah, when Ol’Hambo is explaining (he being fourth in line immediately after the Holy Trinity means that “interpreting” would be out of place) YHWH’s word the probability that he’s wrong is exactly zero.

  5. 50 years ago, Francis Crick commented that one big problem in trying to work out the origins of life was that we have no idea whether it is almost inevitable, given the right physical and chemical preconditions, or that it is extremely unlikely (we know that it has happened on one of the many planets in the universe, but that’s about it), or somewhere in between. IMO, that is still the case today, although increasing knowledge about self-organisation suggests moving our subjective estimate (that’s all it is at the moment) in the direction of more probable.

  6. Obviously we don’t yet know if there actually is life anywhere else, but we have evidence suggesting that life certainly can occur elsewhere. See, e.g.: Key Building Block for Organic Molecules Discovered in Meteorites.

  7. The problem is not making the building blocks. That’s the easy bit. Creationists often complain that experiments such as Urey-Miller are sometimes misleadingly presented as if they solved the hard problem of the origin of life, and in this they are correct

  8. They are correct that such experiments haven’t solved the problem of the origin of life. But I never have anyone who misleadingly presented them as such. Perhaps we can find somebody after a long, hard search, but overall “misleadingly presented” is a strawman.
    At the other hand several creationists have begun to realize that in the near future scientists very well may be able to synthesize life in a lab. They already have begun to claim that that will be evidence for a god, according to the principle heads I win, tail you lose.
    Even that achievement will not solve the problem of the origin of life. The big point is simply that these experiments (and that applies to Urey-Miller as well) demonstrate that naturalistic explanations are possible. Creationists are robbed from another gap they want to plug their god in. And the god of the gaps fallacy (“science can’t explain”) is one of the three pillars of creacrap.

  9. There haven’t been any designs which produce life.
    See the 1852 essay by Herbert Spencer, “The Development Hypothesis” in Wikisource.org.

  10. How would the dimwit know about mars??? Said in a whinny voice…Where you there??!!??

  11. I wonder how he feels about his tax dollars being used for this: