Justice
Member
A Young Earth: “Fishing for Proofâ€Â
A Young Earth: “Fishing for Proofâ€Â
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules ... temid=2698
“Show us proof!,†skeptics sometimes shout, suggesting by their taunt that there is no reliable evidence that supports a young Earth. From formal debates to Internet chat forums, the challenge is made to supply proof that contradicts evolution. Sadly, even many Christians now question whether there is sufficient evidence to support the biblical account of Creation. “Providing the proof†is exactly what Apologetics Press is all about. And “proof†was exactly what we found on a field expedition to southeast Tennessee on February 12, 2005. It was there that we met Dan Jones, who revealed to us a geologic anomaly that fits perfectly with the young Earth account. To use Mr. Jones’ words, it is “something you would never see or expect to see.†But it does exist, and it remains strong “proof†that cannot be explained by evolutionary geologistsâ€â€by their own admission. Keep reading.
Over twenty-five years ago, Dan Jones was trout fishing in the Tellico River. It was there he stumbled across something that still leaves geologists scratching their heads. He stated: “I just walked up on a sandbar and it was laying there with water slapping up on it†(as quoted in Simms, 2004). What did Dan Jones find? It was a simple fishing reelâ€â€partially embedded in rock (known as phyllite) believed to be about 300 million years old (according to evolution-based dating systems). Realizing that few would ever believe him, Jones decided to take the rock as proof of what he had discovered. In our interview with him, he recalled that he had been fishing with a friend, but the friend had already left the scene. Mr. Jones remarked: “I was walking in the river and came up on a sandbar, and there it lay†(Jones, 2005). Lest someone think that this anomaly is simply a reel that is “lightly stuck†to an underlying rock, consider the fact that Jones frequently carries it around by holding the reel as if it were a handle (see image). In fact, he demonstrated this in our presence, showing just how embedded in the rock the reel actually was.
(Fishing reel embedded in rock: Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc).
Consider, too, the fact that the members of geology department from the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga (UTC) scrutinized the rock, and they were completely unable to explain it. They eliminated the possibility of the rock being fake (as in some type of concrete) by applying an acid test to investigate its composition. But that’s where science stopped and speculation began. Some were convinced that the reel “wore its way†into the rock. Another professor noted: “Perhaps some bizarre phenomenon caused by water flow rapidly passing by caused it to abrade its way into the rock†(as quoted in Simms, 2003). Another geologist suggested that maybe it was caused by some type of chemical reaction. However, speculation stopped when the chairman of the geology department arrived on the scene. Richard Simms, in an article he wrote for the Chattanooga Times Free Press (“The Reel in the Rock: Even UTC Geology Experts Can’t Explain Rare Findâ€Â), observed:
Then the head geology guru showed up. Department chairman Dr. Habte Churnet at first seemed somewhat indifferent to the reel in the rock, until his cohorts encouraged a closer look. “Where did you get this?†he exclaimed. The fisherman recited his Tellico story for the 10th time that day as Churnet examined the curiosity. It took minutes before the top geologist arrived at a conclusion that brought chuckles around the room. With great authority he declared, “I am the chairman of the department, and I say this does not exist. It’s a figment of our imagination†(Simms, 2004).
When we asked Mr. Jones if he thought the department chairman stood by his statement, he replied: “Yeah, I think he did. They could not explain it†(Jones, 2005).
For those who would evaluate such evidence with an open mind, here are the facts. It was 1897 when William Shakespeare Jr. patented the first fishing reel. That, by definition, would limit the age of this reel to roughly 100 years. Yet this rock, which weighs close to 20 pounds, is considered by evolutionary timescales to be roughly 300 million years old. Ann Holmes, of the geology department at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, stated: “It’s called phyllite. It’s a metamorphic rock from the Appalachians, the Brevard Zone that was formed probably when Africa and America collided about 300 million years ago†(as quoted in Simms, 2003). Mr. Jones recalled that the geologists appeared very familiar with this type of rock, and he remembered being told that the rock came from the period when the continents divided. He said they informed him that the only two places where this type of rock is found is in the Appalachians and Africa. The obvious question then is: What is a 300 million-year-old rockâ€â€which is supposed to have broken off when America separated from Africaâ€â€doing in the Tellico River with a fishing reel embedded in it?
Does this “proof†fit evolutionary theory? Hardly! You cannot embed a 100-year-old fishing reel inside of a 300-million-year-old rock. But does the evidence fit with a young Earth timeline? Definitely. We contend that the rock is not 300 million years old, as evolutionists purport. Instead, it formed recently, allowing a 100-year-old fishing reel to become embedded during the process. Like it or not, this “proof†does exist, as we can attest. We have seen it with our own eyes. We have talked personally to the man who found it. And he has challenged evolutionary geologists to refute it. But they cannot.
The problem is, in cases like this in which the data do not fit evolutionary theory, it is always the data that end up being thrown out, not the seemingly sacrosanct theory. The “reel in the rock†does not fit with what evolutionists would expect, so they resort to off-the-cuff comments like, “I am the chairman of the department, and I say this does not exist; it’s a figment of our imagination,†and then toss out the dataâ€â€rather than the now-falsified theory. Evolutionists will approach this piece of scientific evidence with one of two options. They will ignore it and hope it goes away, or try to discredit it in an effort to bolster their old-age timelines. (Bear in mind that any efforts to discredit this piece of evidence will invariably call into question the legitimacy of the knowledge base of the entire geology department at UTC, whose members personally exained this unusual artifact.)
Skeptics ask for proof. Well, this certainly qualifies as proof. Question is: Will the skeptics accept the “proof†provided by this amazing piece of scientific evidence? If not, why not?
(Lifting the rock using the embedded reel: Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc).
A Young Earth: “Fishing for Proofâ€Â
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules ... temid=2698
“Show us proof!,†skeptics sometimes shout, suggesting by their taunt that there is no reliable evidence that supports a young Earth. From formal debates to Internet chat forums, the challenge is made to supply proof that contradicts evolution. Sadly, even many Christians now question whether there is sufficient evidence to support the biblical account of Creation. “Providing the proof†is exactly what Apologetics Press is all about. And “proof†was exactly what we found on a field expedition to southeast Tennessee on February 12, 2005. It was there that we met Dan Jones, who revealed to us a geologic anomaly that fits perfectly with the young Earth account. To use Mr. Jones’ words, it is “something you would never see or expect to see.†But it does exist, and it remains strong “proof†that cannot be explained by evolutionary geologistsâ€â€by their own admission. Keep reading.
Over twenty-five years ago, Dan Jones was trout fishing in the Tellico River. It was there he stumbled across something that still leaves geologists scratching their heads. He stated: “I just walked up on a sandbar and it was laying there with water slapping up on it†(as quoted in Simms, 2004). What did Dan Jones find? It was a simple fishing reelâ€â€partially embedded in rock (known as phyllite) believed to be about 300 million years old (according to evolution-based dating systems). Realizing that few would ever believe him, Jones decided to take the rock as proof of what he had discovered. In our interview with him, he recalled that he had been fishing with a friend, but the friend had already left the scene. Mr. Jones remarked: “I was walking in the river and came up on a sandbar, and there it lay†(Jones, 2005). Lest someone think that this anomaly is simply a reel that is “lightly stuck†to an underlying rock, consider the fact that Jones frequently carries it around by holding the reel as if it were a handle (see image). In fact, he demonstrated this in our presence, showing just how embedded in the rock the reel actually was.
(Fishing reel embedded in rock: Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc).
Consider, too, the fact that the members of geology department from the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga (UTC) scrutinized the rock, and they were completely unable to explain it. They eliminated the possibility of the rock being fake (as in some type of concrete) by applying an acid test to investigate its composition. But that’s where science stopped and speculation began. Some were convinced that the reel “wore its way†into the rock. Another professor noted: “Perhaps some bizarre phenomenon caused by water flow rapidly passing by caused it to abrade its way into the rock†(as quoted in Simms, 2003). Another geologist suggested that maybe it was caused by some type of chemical reaction. However, speculation stopped when the chairman of the geology department arrived on the scene. Richard Simms, in an article he wrote for the Chattanooga Times Free Press (“The Reel in the Rock: Even UTC Geology Experts Can’t Explain Rare Findâ€Â), observed:
Then the head geology guru showed up. Department chairman Dr. Habte Churnet at first seemed somewhat indifferent to the reel in the rock, until his cohorts encouraged a closer look. “Where did you get this?†he exclaimed. The fisherman recited his Tellico story for the 10th time that day as Churnet examined the curiosity. It took minutes before the top geologist arrived at a conclusion that brought chuckles around the room. With great authority he declared, “I am the chairman of the department, and I say this does not exist. It’s a figment of our imagination†(Simms, 2004).
When we asked Mr. Jones if he thought the department chairman stood by his statement, he replied: “Yeah, I think he did. They could not explain it†(Jones, 2005).
For those who would evaluate such evidence with an open mind, here are the facts. It was 1897 when William Shakespeare Jr. patented the first fishing reel. That, by definition, would limit the age of this reel to roughly 100 years. Yet this rock, which weighs close to 20 pounds, is considered by evolutionary timescales to be roughly 300 million years old. Ann Holmes, of the geology department at the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, stated: “It’s called phyllite. It’s a metamorphic rock from the Appalachians, the Brevard Zone that was formed probably when Africa and America collided about 300 million years ago†(as quoted in Simms, 2003). Mr. Jones recalled that the geologists appeared very familiar with this type of rock, and he remembered being told that the rock came from the period when the continents divided. He said they informed him that the only two places where this type of rock is found is in the Appalachians and Africa. The obvious question then is: What is a 300 million-year-old rockâ€â€which is supposed to have broken off when America separated from Africaâ€â€doing in the Tellico River with a fishing reel embedded in it?
Does this “proof†fit evolutionary theory? Hardly! You cannot embed a 100-year-old fishing reel inside of a 300-million-year-old rock. But does the evidence fit with a young Earth timeline? Definitely. We contend that the rock is not 300 million years old, as evolutionists purport. Instead, it formed recently, allowing a 100-year-old fishing reel to become embedded during the process. Like it or not, this “proof†does exist, as we can attest. We have seen it with our own eyes. We have talked personally to the man who found it. And he has challenged evolutionary geologists to refute it. But they cannot.
The problem is, in cases like this in which the data do not fit evolutionary theory, it is always the data that end up being thrown out, not the seemingly sacrosanct theory. The “reel in the rock†does not fit with what evolutionists would expect, so they resort to off-the-cuff comments like, “I am the chairman of the department, and I say this does not exist; it’s a figment of our imagination,†and then toss out the dataâ€â€rather than the now-falsified theory. Evolutionists will approach this piece of scientific evidence with one of two options. They will ignore it and hope it goes away, or try to discredit it in an effort to bolster their old-age timelines. (Bear in mind that any efforts to discredit this piece of evidence will invariably call into question the legitimacy of the knowledge base of the entire geology department at UTC, whose members personally exained this unusual artifact.)
Skeptics ask for proof. Well, this certainly qualifies as proof. Question is: Will the skeptics accept the “proof†provided by this amazing piece of scientific evidence? If not, why not?
(Lifting the rock using the embedded reel: Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc).
