The point is that you can’t do that. That’s the entire conundrum with Frequentism. They object to stating anything about the probability of Saturn, because from an objectivist point of view, any statement is either true or it isn’t, and therefore all probabilistic statements about it must be 0% or 100%. Instead they resort to statements about the frequencies over the long term from repeated processes, like the one you have. There are two problems with this:
1. They aren’t answering the original question. The question is about the probability of a property of Saturn. Not about the process of repeatedly forming thousands of alternative Saturns. This seems like a subtle difference but that’s only because Frequentism has been the default for so long. It doesn’t attempt to answer the questions people are actually asking.
2. The assumptions it makes to answer that alternative question are just as flawed. We can’t go back in time and change the conditions surrounding Saturn’s creation. We can’t run 1000s of repeated trials of the creation of Saturn. For a group of people so ideologically opposed to a statement as simple as “the probability of this flipped coin being heads is 50%”, it seems absurd that they are fine with their entire framework being built around a premise that doesn’t exist and cannot exist.