It is unnecessary to recapitulate before this Section of the British
Association, even in briefest outline, the reasoning of geologists and
palæontologists which leads them to conclude that the history recorded
in the crust of the earth must have required for its transaction a much
vaster period of time than that to which the physicists would restrict
it.[92] Let me merely remark that the reasoning is essentially based on
observations of the present rate of geological and biological changes
upon the earth's surface. It is not, of course, maintained that this
rate has never varied in the past. But it is the only rate with which
we are familiar, which we can watch and in some degree measure, and
which, therefore, we can take as a guide towards the comprehension and
interpretation of the past history of our planet.
It may be, and has often been, said that the present scale of
geological and biological processes cannot be accepted as a reliable
measure for the past. Starting from the postulate, which no one will
dispute, that the total sum of terrestrial energy was once greater
than it is now and has been steadily declining, the physicists have
boldly asserted that all kinds of geological action must have been
more vigorous and rapid during bygone ages than they are to-day;
that volcanoes were more gigantic, earthquakes more frequent and
destructive, mountain-upthrows more stupendous, tides and waves more
powerful, and commotions of the atmosphere more violent, with more
ruinous tempests and heavier rainfall. Assertions of this kind are
temptingly plausible and are easily made. But it is not enough that
they should be made; they ought to be supported by some kind of
evidence to show that they are founded on actual fact and not on mere
theoretical possibility. Such evidence, if it existed, could surely
be produced. The chronicle of the earth's history, from a very early
period down to the present time, has been legibly written within the
sedimentary formations of the terrestrial crust. Let the appeal be made
to that register. Does it lend any support to the affirmation that
the geological processes are now feebler and slower than they used to
be? If it does, the physicists, we might suppose, would gladly bring
forward its evidence as irrefragable confirmation of the soundness of
their contention. But the geologists have found no such confirmation.
On the contrary, they have been unable to discover any indication that
the rate of geological causation has ever, on the whole, greatly varied
during the time which has elapsed since the deposition of the oldest
stratified rocks. They do not assert that there has been no variation,
that there have been no periods of greater activity, both hypogene and
epigene. But they maintain that the demonstration of the existence of
such periods has yet to be made. They most confidently affirm that
whatever may have happened in the earliest ages, throughout the whole
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account