This commentary is flawed in every way imaginable.
Of all the errors, the most fundamental is the assumption that if the universe is, say, 3 billion years old, then everything in it and all its forms are also 3 billion years old. That’s an obvious crock. All phenomena are transient, taking place within a very old matrix of time and space, but which are themselves most fleeting and temporary.
Would anyone take seriously an argument that the universe is young because it has young forms in it? Has no one ever seen breath on a cold day or heard a child’s laugh?
Very young and very fresh, despite being embedded within an ancient universe.
Rings around planets are, in a sense, just as fleeting. They were not formed at the beginning of time nor will they be there at the end. And neither will we.
So what?
The rings on Saturn change so rapidly that they must have formed quite recently, on the order of millennia and they've generally been thought to be the oldest of the planet rings.
The age and fate of Saturns rings
As the article says, Saturn's rings were long assumed to be about 4.6 billion years old. Yet a new ring, the 'C' ring, has apparently come into existence since telescope observations of Saturn's rings began. This must be due to dissipation of the 'B' ring.
Thus one of the three prominent rings of Saturn has evidently developed since the early 1800s. The inner edge of the C ring is approaching the planet, and Napier and Clube calculated the rate of approach as 100 km per year.
The history of C ring observations implies rapid ring spreading and dissipation. The inner edge of the B ring is now 91,975 km from the center of Saturn and the inner edge of the C ring is at 74,658 km.44 Thus the width of the C ring is 17,317 km, or about 15,000 km, a width which developed since about 1850. This implies an infall of ring particles in agreement with the computation of Napier and Clube.