By degrees, however, there have arisen among the physicists themselves grave doubts as to the validity of the physical evidence on which the limitation of the earth's age has been founded, and at the same time greater appreciation has been shown of the signification and strength of the geological proofs of the high antiquity of our planet. In an address from the chair of the Mathematical Section of the British Association in 1886, Professor (afterwards Sir) George Darwin reviewed the controversy, and pronounced the following deliberate judgment in regard to it: "In considering these three arguments I have adduced some reasons against the validity of the first [tidal friction], and have endeavoured to show that there are elements of uncertainty surrounding the second [secular cooling of the earth]; nevertheless, they undoubtedly constitute a contribution of the first importance to physical geology. Whilst, then, we may protest against the precision with which Professor Tait seeks to deduce results from them, we are fully justified in following Sir William Thomson, who says that 'the existing state of things on the earth, life on the earth--all geological history showing continuity of life--must be limited within some such period of past time as 100 million years'." Lord Kelvin has never dealt with the geological and palaeontological objections against the limitation of geological time to a few millions of years. But Professor Darwin, in the address just cited, uttered the memorable warning: "At present our knowledge of a definite limit to geological time has so little precision that we should do wrong summarily to reject theories which appear to demand longer periods of time than those which now appear allowable." In his presidential address to the British Association at Cape Town in 1905 he returned to the subject, remarking that the argument derived from the increase of underground temperature "seems to be entirely destroyed" by the discovery of the properties of radium. He thinks that "it does not seem extravagant to suppose that 500 to 1000 million years may have elapsed since the birth of the moon." He has "always believed that the geologists were more nearly correct than the physicists, notwithstanding the fact that appearances were so strongly against them," and he concludes thus: "It appears, then, that the physical argument is not susceptible of a greater degree of certainty than that of the geologists, and the scale of geological time remains in great measure unknown" (see also Tide, chap. viii.).