Hambo Explains the History of the Universe

Your Curmudgeon is pleased to bring you a brilliant post from the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. It’s titled Is Our Universe in Its “Final Era”?, and it was written by ol’ Hambo himself. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Some Christians claim the idea of the big bang is compatible with the creation account in Genesis — but it’s not! More in a moment on why the two are utterly incompatible. Now, when it comes to questions about origins, we should remember that we must always take God at his Word rather than take man’s ideas about the past and add them into the Bible. God’s infallible Word — not man’s fallible word — is the standard of truth because God has always been there, does not lie, and does not make a mistake. God and his Word must be our ultimate authority.

If you never read anything else in your life, that one paragraph has enough wisdom to make you one of the wisest people who ever lived — and there’s more coming. Hambo says:

So why aren’t the idea of the big bang and the creation account in Genesis compatible? Well, the big bang is based on the religion of naturalism [Gasp!], which assumes that the universe arose by natural processes. It’s a way of trying to explain everything without God. We should never take elements of a different religion and mix them in with Christianity and the Bible.

Hambo is so wise! After that he tells us:

Also, the big bang model has the stars forming first, followed by the sun, and then the earth billions of years later, forming as a molten body. And stars supposedly continue to form. [Absurd!] But the Bible’s account of creation has God creating space, time, and matter, along with the earth, on day one of creation week. And God finished his work of creation on the sixth day. So, earth was created first, and it wasn’t a hot blob — it was covered with water (Genesis 1:2). It wasn’t until the fourth day that the sun, moon, and stars were created. So the order of events is completely wrong (and there are many more examples of the incompatibility of the evolutionary and biblical orders of events.)

Scientists are such fools! Hambo continues:

Now, what many Christians don’t realize is that the big bang isn’t just a story about the origins of everything — it’s also a story with predictions for the future. In the most common model, the universe eventually reaches thermal equilibrium with zero energy available (a “heat death,” but it’s not hot as there’s no energy — so it becomes cold). But this is opposite of what the Bible states will happen in the future!

The opposite? Egad! He then quotes from 2 Peter 3:10 to prove his point, and after that he says:

Christians must reject the big bang and believe God’s Word as written.

Are you paying attention? If not, you will suffer forever for your foolishness! Let’s read on:

A recent article [The Universe is already in its sixth and final era], describes how those who hold to the big bang model believe everything came to be and how it will eventually end. And the author believes we’re already in the beginning of the end in the final era, called “the dark energy era.”

Hambo obviously disapproves of such blasphemy, and tells us:

Well, one thing we can agree on is that the universe is indeed in its “final era.” God’s Word makes it clear that the universe is in the last days — we just don’t know how last. But we’ve been in the last days since God’s Son stepped into history to be the God-man Jesus.

It’s a long goodbye. Another excerpt:

The rest of the article is fiction [Hee hee!]: man’s made-up story to try to explain the universe without God. The universe isn’t going to die by a “heat death.” The true history of the universe is given to us by God in his Word, beginning in Genesis. And the real so-called “big bang” didn’t happen at the beginning of time — it’s going to happen sometime in the future with increasing heat:

We’ll skip that scripture quote. Now we come to the end:

Sadly, to the secularists, ultimately everything dies and life is meaningless! But for the Christian, we look forward to a “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwells righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13). And this new heavens and new earth are freely given to all who will repent and trust in Christ for salvation. If you haven’t repented and trusted Chris — turn to the Savior today! We do not know when he will return, but he is coming back and will judge the living and the dead — and only those who are in him will be saved.

There it is, dear reader — all the cosmology you will ever need to know. Now, at last, the universe makes sense!

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

16 responses to “Hambo Explains the History of the Universe

  1. How do people explain that the Sun, Moon and stars were created, on day four, to measure the passage of time. That’s what Genesis 1 says. How were there days one, two and three? And nights?

  2. Genesis was written (by or for) pre-scientific people for whom the earth was not only the center of the cosmos, the earth was the cosmos, and it shows. Ham will never admit to that, since that is not how he makes his money

  3. (and there are many more examples of the incompatibility of the evolutionary and biblical orders of events.)

    Incompatibility is too sophisticated a word for your garbage Ken. Stop using respectable words for baloney.

    Ken’s god must be the laziest person in the universe because it is omnipotent but it still took six days. Even if it didn’t take six days, omnipotent by definition is a lazy-arse because it takes zero effort to do anything.

  4. @TomS They don’t know where the light comes from, but there was some type of light and a rotating Earth. See “Objection 2” at https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/could-god-really-have-created-everything-in-six-days/

  5. Since “natural processes” can and do explain the universe, there’s no need for your mythical sky fairy Ken. Let us know if you ever get any data to support the sky fairy hypothesis.

  6. Ken should remember the wise words of my old friend, Bill…..

  7. beg pardon all…. slip of the old fingers…. the words: Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
    Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
    To the last syllable of recorded time,
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
    The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
    Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing. – My good friend, Bill Shakespeare

  8. Dave Luckett

    That’s Ken Ham, but he’s anything but a poor player. Another quotation from someone I admire; “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God”.

    Which is a case in point. It’s no use asking “Who, me?”, Ken. You’re a rich man. You’d better have done a whole lot better than Dives if you want to avoid what happened to him. Fact is, I don’t think you have.

    And it’s a case in point, translation-wise, as well. It’s a vivid figure, typical of the source. Only it may not be what He actually said. As far back as Clement of Alexandria, we have the comment that the Greek camelos, camel. was a mistake for camilos,,cable, heavy rope. Perhaps so. It’s not certain. But if the Fathers of the Church thought it possible that there were scribal errors in the text. who is Ken Ham to say that it is inerrant?

    But Ken doesn’t just think the text is inerrant. “Think” is a pallid, wishy-washy term for his reaction to it. He is fanatically (or financially; the two are indistinguishable) convinced that the text is transmitted absolutely perfectly AND that his reception is also perfect. That is, not only is the text impeccable, but his understanding of it is also inerrant. Ken Ham thinks himself capable of divine understanding.

    The rest is just delusional, and there’s no other word for it. There is absolutely no justification for thinking that the various texts, their selection, transmission or translation is inerrant, but even less for thinking that they are God’s own words. They are manifestly, obviously, the product of human beings. But Ken Ham makes the same claim for the whole of the Bible that Muslims make for the Qu’ran – that this is God speaking, in person. These are His very words. It’s a claim the text never makes itself, and anybody who’s ever read it carefully knows for absolute certain can’t be justified.

    Ken’s just mad, of course. Doolally. Upton Park (most of the way to barking). Crazy. Howling, puking, raving insane. But here he is, saying it right out loud, in public, on the internet, and there’s a measurable faction who are nodding along and thinking, “Right on, brother”. And sending money. To Ken Ham.

    World full of need. Poor people. Sick. Homeless. Hungry. Despairing. Oppressed. And his adherents send money to Ken Ham, so he can be insane in public. Words fail me.

  9. Ol’ Hambo: . . . so it becomes cold. . . But this is opposite of what the Bible states will happen in the future!

    2 Peter 3:10
    But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

    Sounds like ol’ Sol going supernova, affecting the Earth but not the entire Universe

    Except . . .

    “In order for a star to go supernova, it has to have a mass greater than at least 8 solar masses. Although there is some debate about the exact threshold, the Sun is not nearly massive enough, not even close. So if it went supernova it would be really weird. In fact, it would be ‘totally defying the laws of physics’ weird.”


  10. @richard
    Genesis 1:14 etc says that the lights were:
    to divide day from the night
    for signs, and for seasons, and for days

    But there were days divided from nights, and there were days … three of them …before there were those lights to serve those purposes.

    And, btw, there is nothing in Genesis 1 which says that the turning of the Earth is involved … if that were the case, then the measuring of days is done differently over all of the time zones of the Earth. Day 4 ended immediately at one place, and lasted 23+ hours at another place. Not to mention there being no sunset at the poles, no sequence of days there.

  11. About the rotation of the Earth and the Bible. There was no one, Christian fathers of the Church or otherwise, before about the year 1500 or so, who suggested that the Bible was consistent with a rotation of the Earth, or any other motion of the Earth (for example, that the famous miracle for Joshua might be taken figuratively). The opinion of a majority of fathers was worth mentioning wrt the “days” of creation, so I bring this up.

  12. Charles Deetz ;)

    Prove the Bible is inerrant and literally the word of God, then we can consider the rest of this argument. At least some evidence, please.

  13. Evidence? Ken ain’t got no evidence. He don’t need no steeenkin evidence!

  14. @Charles Deetz 😉
    There are suggestions in the Bible that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally and as inerrant. There is ample evidence from the interpretative literature of the Ancient Near East that the people of the culture which produced the Bible would not expect the Bible to be read literally.

  15. @TomS

    And, btw, there is nothing in Genesis 1 which says that the turning of the Earth is involved … if that were the case, then the measuring of days is done differently over all of the time zones of the Earth. Day 4 ended immediately at one place, and lasted 23+ hours at another place. Not to mention there being no sunset at the poles, no sequence of days there.

    Yeah I think the LORD could definitely use a copyeditor. It’s almost as though God didn’t make it through Astronomy 101.

  16. @richard
    If the author of the Bible intended to say that the Earth is a rotating spheroid, that author sure needed some major help in clarity of writing.