The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
The Reel in a Rock
image Stop The Presses! The Creationists have disproven evolution! How? Because they found a fishing reel in a rock.

The 'reel in a rock' seems to have been around for quite a while, but I've only heard of it now. What a treat I've been missing. Dan Jones says that he found this thing twenty-five years ago while trout fishing. It was lying right out in the open. It's a chunk of Phyllite rock with an old fishing reel embedded in it. It's pretty obvious that someone has drilled a few holes in order to insert the reel into the rock, but the Creationists are claiming that the rock itself must have formed around the reel. To their minds, this is the only solution. They then argue that since modern geological science says this would be impossible, that Geology must be wrong. And therefore evolution is wrong! It's all so logical. The fragile edifice of modern science brought down by a fishing reel in a rock.

You can find some debunking of the 'reel in a rock' over at the Creation versus Evolution site. A geologist, Ann Holmes, who had a chance to examine the rock says:

The phyllite had saw marks in it where the flattish plate of the reel had been imbedded. Sharp-edged saw marks that would have surely weathered rounder had it been wallowed out by water around the reel. I also suspect a drill hole to hold the one round reel support imbedded as well.

The only real question is who created this hoax. (Thanks to Donald Simanek for sending me the link).
Categories: ReligionScience
Posted by The Curator on Tue May 10, 2005
(confirmation word: sucker)

I give it ten minutes before it shows up on E-Bay..
Posted by Bobcat  on  Tue May 10, 2005  at  10:43 PM
The world is also a lot smaller than the evolutionists would have you believe. The trip of the Mayflower disproves their claims. That trip took 66 days. Evolutionists tell us that it is over 3200 miles from South Hampton to Massachusetts. It would have had to travel at a speed of 2 MPH! I have seen the Mayflower and can tell you that that is impossible. The Mayflower is about four inches long and could never have gone that fast, especially with the drag of the bottle around it.

Take that, Evil-utionists!
Posted by Mark W  in  Minnesota, USA  on  Tue May 10, 2005  at  11:33 PM
Not surprised at all though that "they" consider that proof and the thought of a hoax never enters ones mind...

hmmm
Posted by Mark-N-Isa  in  Midwest USA  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  12:55 AM
Alex, you're not using your head. Did they have power drills 100 years ago? 300 million years ago? Obviously not.
Posted by Citizen Premier  in  spite of public outcry  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  01:06 AM
I agree Mark-N-Jen. Not a single word about the possibility of a hoax. Why is it not in the news? Has this "proof" been documented anywhere else or just this Christian website? Who are the "geologists" who are "scratching their heads"? And just what exactly is an "evolution-based dating system"? I have heard of carbon dating...but that has to do with atomic decay rates, not evolution.
~sigh~ confused
Posted by Papazombie  in  Edmonton  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  01:06 AM
What does not having a power drill 100 years ago have anything to do with it? Its a MODERN hoax and we have power drills. hmmm
Posted by Papazombie  in  Edmonton  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  01:13 AM
Ahhh.. but you see, they have *faith* that the item is real, and that's what religion is all about, isn't it? If they can prove that science is flawed, then they win! Having faith when others point out inconsistencies and flaws is crucial to the survival of religion.

Never mind that disproving one theory does not automagically prove a conflicting theory...

Not that I'm against religion, mind you. Show me a 'miracle' that truly cannot be explained by mortal means, and I'll be first in line for converts. It's *faith* I have trouble with.
Posted by Bobcat  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  01:30 AM
i agree this is obviosly a hoax. simon peter and andrew did not use fishing reels. they cast their nets on the waters. fishing reels are modern things. how can any christian belief this? but i disagree about who is hoaxing who. i think this is a hox by unchristians to make christians look bad. they try to make true beleivers look like fanatatics. yes, there is no evolution and the geoglogists are wrong, but this hoax is ridiculous.
Posted by Leonidas  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  08:01 AM
Modern day items have been found in crystals and coal as well as other things. Science has proven that material like that can grow extremly fast in certain conditions.
Posted by X  in  McKinney, TX  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  09:38 AM
(On a brief side-note, what word do you think the Captcha served me? "doctored"!)

From the article: "you cannot embed a 100-year-old fishing reel inside of a 300-million-year-old rock." Ughhh, yes you can, take a look at this 300-million-year-old rock with a 100-year-old fishing reel embedded in it! Duh!
Posted by Gutza  in  Bucharest  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  09:47 AM
My guess: Lightning struck the reel sitting on the rock. Extreme heat caused the rock to liquify for a short period of time, long enough for the reel to sink partially into the rock. It's obvious that the intentations in the rock around the reel are far too "young" to have sat in the open for very long, expecially in a water environment.
Posted by Irish Horse Thief  in  Rescue 16  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  10:29 AM
Much as it would be NICE if this story were true, it doesn't seem as such. It goes along w/ the old "normal guy confuses smart guy" where the person of no particular education outsmarts, or outwits someone extremely high in a specific educational field. One for John Q. America, zero for Smarty P. Ants.

And Leo, they're not saying that this was used by Christ. Things can still be real (no pun intended), even if they were not around when Andrew & Simon Peter were fishing.
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, FL - USA  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  11:43 AM
Maegan, Leonidas has a good point. The same guys who say this is some sort of evidence for creationism also agree that "in the old days" (e.g. when Jesus lived), there was no such thing as a fishing reel. Then what's the point of the whole thing?

What do they prove exactly? Is it that rock is liquid? I don't think so. Is it that rock is actually young, and the geologists are wrong when they're dating it? That would make sense as an argument (false, since this is a hoax, but nevertheless, it would make sense as an argument), but that's not what they're after. Then what is?

I think they're basically saying "you can't explain this, therefore we must be right", which is obviously flawed logic, because they can't explain it either. Makes no sense.
Posted by Gutza  in  Bucharest  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  11:52 AM
Thanks for putting that story on your front page. I'm the one that tipped off Donald to the story. We're still waiting for Dr. Bert to issue a public response as to his intentions regarding the growing criticism of the story. Looks like "mum's the word" from Apologetics Press. Maybe someone who visits here will hit him up for a public comment.
Posted by Robert  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  12:03 PM
You are aware that it's on the front page because it's the most recent, right?
Posted by Boo  in  The Land of the Haggii...  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  12:12 PM
Whatever! :o)
Posted by Robert  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  12:31 PM
For those who are confused about what it is trying to prove, read the end of the article. They are basically saying that the fishing reel was dated to be 300 years old when it was only invented 100 years ago and therefore cannot be more then 100 years old. Somehow, this proves in their mind that the earth is younger than scientists have predicted. Even if this wasn't a hoax, wouldn't that just prove carbon dating wrong (if that is in fact the type of dating they used), rather than the age of the earth wrong. Carbon dating isn't even used to date the earth anyways. Our planet is way to old to use carbon dating.
Posted by Razela  in  Chicago, IL  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  02:43 PM
Actually, the world was created, in its entirety, about 11 minutes ago. Say, about 3:31, Mountain time. (where I currently sit on my tuckus) It was created fully formed, with everybody in it coming into being at once, airplanes formed fully, instantly, flying along, basketballs appearing in mid-air, brains starting up mid thought (or lack of thought). We were all created with all of our memories fabricated to match our surroundings. The rocks were formed with their half-life already partially expired, half-lives partially used up, with fossils crfated into the rocks, and magma already churing about. Photons were created all the way from the sun to here, whizzing along at light speed. It all just started, but it's a perfect fake.

Disprove that, man.
Posted by DaveG  in  Salt Lake City  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  05:41 PM
Using fairly simple technology, you can imbed practically anything in a rock.
It's called concrete.
Posted by Big Gary in Dallas  in  Dallas, Texas, USA  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  06:46 PM
would a simple X-ray not be enough to prove this either way?
Posted by Steve  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  07:20 PM
Here's some more fuel. I had read somewhere (man I wish I could remember where)that our carbon dating system is a little inaccurate and the Earth may be OLDER then we think. big surprise


Someone is bound to have fun with this one...
Posted by Papazombie  in  Edmonton  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  08:28 PM
Actually, Dve, it was 4:l1 mountain time. or it could have been 6:21. I don't rememer exactly
Posted by God  in  Heaven  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  09:17 PM
"Modern day items have been found in crystals and coal as well as other things. Science has proven that material like that can grow extremly fast in certain conditions."
that was the whole idea of how it would prove creation - that rock could also form in a very shot time around other objects (bones? fossils?) therefore millions of years would not have been necessary to create the geological record we have. it could have happened, say, in the great flood, in about a year.
Posted by Kirstin  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  11:35 PM
This also proves, if it is real, that our current system of dating rocks has some serious failures. there is a fishing reel in the rock, therefore the rock can only be about 100 years old, altho it is the type supposed to be missions of years old.
this supports the views of creation because if rocks are not as old as we thought, than the earth could have been created thousands of years ago, rather than evolving over millions of years - and fossils of dinosaurs could be much more recent then we think
Posted by Kirstin  on  Wed May 11, 2005  at  11:42 PM
i think ive heard rather fortean stories about stuff embedded in rocks that shouldnt be, out of place anacronisms, but dont hold me to this, as i am being very vague

maybe the bible people are right... maybe all the fossils and bones were put there as a joke by god... but since evolution is one of the biggest causes for atheism either the joke went horribly wrong or its the work of one of gods disgruntled employees....

god has many disgruntled employees, thats what happens when you force your workers to build a world in six days
Posted by joeodd  on  Thu May 12, 2005  at  06:33 AM
But I'm sure they had medical benefits. God being able to raise people from the dead & all.
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, FL - USA  on  Thu May 12, 2005  at  08:48 AM
Check it out:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2698

Dr. Bert is now trying to back pedal on his "Rock 'n Reel" claims.

I guess we won one, but it still looks like Dr. Bert is posturing for a coverup.
Posted by Robert  on  Fri May 13, 2005  at  03:37 PM
I don't know. I really liked their (more recent) article. Although it is hard to take people who believe so strongly in creationism and so adamantly against evolution seriously, I think it's great that after hearing claims that their "facts" in their article were wrong, they are willing to take down the original article before it is investigated further. Frankly, I think that shows a lot of class on their part. Many people (no matter which side of the argument they are on) just stick by their obviously wrong facts even when someone proves them wrong. At least they are trying.
Posted by Razela  in  Chicago, IL  on  Fri May 13, 2005  at  09:01 PM
I'm just glad he's at least being educated about the whole thing...
"Fourth, it is my hope that the fact we have removed the article from our Web site will serve as compelling confirmation of the value we place on truth, as well as proof that we are willing to respond in an honorable manner when challenged."

As Razela said, at least they're trying.
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, FL - USA  on  Sun May 15, 2005  at  12:28 PM
Dr. Bert wrote, in part, as the Maegan noted: "We are willing to respond in an honorable manner when challenged".

Much more could be said, but how about this. Dr. Bert was challenged almost immediately after he published that article. Yet, he left it up on his website for weeks and weeks and weeks with no indication that he realized it was not what he originally claimed for it.

How much pressure did it take for him to actually do something about it; and what were those pressures? We probably will never know, nor are we likely to be told what his continuing studies of the issue actually are.

Dr. Bert and his secrets; so many secrets.

It must have really gotten bad down in his offices for him to have to give this one up!

I anticipate quite a continuing cover up and that we might not even ever hear another word about it from Dr. Bert.
Posted by Robert  on  Mon May 16, 2005  at  12:49 PM
Comments: Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.