Explore

Choose country

This article is from
Creation 29(4):49, September 2007

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

Toy car rocks million-year belief

by

sandstone
Sandstone is just grains of sand held together by cement—in this case by the mineral called calcium carbonate (CaCO3).

When you stroll along the beach you are walking on rocks that are millions of years old—right?

That’s the impression we get from TV and newspapers, and they seem to vie for the oldest date—in millions of years of course.

But Chris and Sandra Barnes were in for a shock as they walked along the beach near their home in Brisbane, Australia.

One particular rock on the shore at Victoria Point just looked like any other rounded piece of ordinary sandstone. But when they kicked it over, it exposed a child’s toy encased inside.

What a surprise!

rock car
It looks like an ordinary piece of sandstone rounded smooth over millions of years. But presto—underneath it contains a modern toy car.

Inside the rock, previously hidden from their view, was a miniature toy car. It had an ivory-coloured body, little black tyres and a yellow plastic cover. Some of the inside workings of the toy were also visible.

Clearly the rock was not millions of years old. It could only have been 10 or 20 years at the most. Yet it ‘looked’ old.

Rocks don’t need millions of years to form—they just need suitable conditions.

Related Articles

Further Reading

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

D R L.
CA October 19th, 2012
"Or the canyon at Mt St Helens, which contains the same stratification lines you find in the Grand Canyon in Arizona,"

Please take a closer look. They aren't the same.
Scott W.
GB October 11th, 2012
"Brett J., United States, 29 June 2011

The age of rocks is not determined by looking at them, it’s determined by using measurements such as uranium, strontium, and/or rubidium decay. This article displays your basic ignorance of what you are arguing against and ultimately seriously undermines your position. No scientists claim that all rocks are millions of years old."

The article was not an in-depth treatise on the age of rocks. Consider it similar to the evolution finds such as a jaw bone supposedly proving that humans were once sea sponges.

If you are genuinely interested in the subject, please examine the creation.com website to see why the methods you mention may not be reliable. Your brief response merely shows you aren't aware of the arguments against your belief system.
Wayne M.
US October 11th, 2012
This reminds me of petrified hats and other modern things, that we have been led to believe took millions of years to form, but clearly are modern man-made creations, which petrified quickly. Or the canyon at Mt St Helens, which contains the same stratification lines you find in the Grand Canyon in Arizona, which we are told took millions of years to form, but the one at Mt St Helens was formed since the 1980 eruption of the volcano. Clearly it doesn't take millions of years, and the Grand Canyon didn't either. (there is a similar one in Georgia, which 150 years ago was farmland, now it's a canyon (11 miles long), with the same kind of features found in the Grand Canyon in Arizona.
J. Dana C.
CA October 11th, 2012
Of course the rock is millions of years old, it just proves that aliens came to earth with their kids for a day at the beach. Where is the sarcasm key anyway? Nice little article, thanks.
Dave B.
GB October 10th, 2012
Can't wait for the next headline which will decide that this is evidence that shows how coaches, juggernauts and double-decker buses evolved!!!
Anthony S.
CA October 10th, 2012
This was obviously a 'here's something you don't see every day' story with an added bonus of showing a valuable illustration regarding the formation of rocks. This article was not displaying ignorance on the subject, regardless of what some of these comments would indicate. It was merely stating that, contrary to popular perceptions, it does not take millions of years for rocks to form. Many rocks that LOOK old are not necessarily all that old.

And as for the comments about what methods are used to date these rocks ages.... you should read a few of the more science based articles from this website. You may find some of their information interesting and informative.
Eddie M.
GB February 20th, 2012
I put this example to an evolutionist and he said it was due to concretion and that was not fossilization. Can someone clarify. Thanks.
Tas Walker
May 17th, 2012
Google will help you. The point is that old-looking rocks can form quickly, contrary to the general perception in our culture.
Charles K.
US June 28th, 2011
Fantastic find! As you well know, there are three types of rock. Igneous, Metamorphic, and Sedimentary. Sedimentary rocks form from pieces of Igneous and Metamorphic rock that have been shucked off by erosion, but they can also form from the hard parts of animals, mostly composed of calcium. A great example of this is Limestone, where we can find the shells of animals that have been extinct for millions of years!

So while sedimentary rock can form in a very short period of time, the parts that make up the sedimentary rock can be very old. In fact the oldest metamorphic rock can be found in the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt in Northern Quebec, dated to over four billion years!
Brett J.
US June 29th, 2011
The age of rocks is not determined by looking at them, it’s determined by using measurements such as uranium, strontium, and/or rubidium decay. This article displays your basic ignorance of what you are arguing against and ultimately seriously undermines your position. No scientists claim that all rocks are millions of years old.
Joseph E.
US June 29th, 2011
Forgive me if I’m bursting your bubble, but just because a rock has elements of a toy car on the underside does not mean the rock could only have been created in the past 10 to 20 years. The rock itself is still quite old, probably millions of years. The fact that there’s a toy car on the bottom indicates to somebody whetted away at the rock and used it to make a more modern toy. The fallacy lies in the that the rock was not created along wit the toy, as one could mistakenly be led to believe through your article. the rock is not young due to the toy car no more than a mountain is young because we have tunneled a hole through it.
Donald K.
US June 29th, 2011
There is a difference between fossilization and concretion.
John D.
US June 29th, 2011
This is not even wrong. Put another way, your article did not even achieve the relevance to be considered wrong. Put still another, it would be unclear without context whether or not you were making an ironic joke. The people you speak for should be insulted.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.