Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    August 14, 1883

    “The Uncertainty of Geological Science. (Continued.)” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 60, 33, pp. 513, 514.

    BY ELD. A. T. JONES

    (Continued.)

    NEXT in order, we come to Part IV., Structural Geology—Order of Superposition—The Foundation of Geological Chronology: “As sedimentary strata are laid down upon one another in a more or less nearly horizontal position, the underlying beds must be older than those which cover them. This simple and obvious truth is termed the law of superposition.” Again, Part V., under “Use of Fossils“: “The true order of superposition is decisive of the relative ages of stratified rocks.” “For geological purposes therefore, and indeed for all purposes of comparison between the different faunas and floras of different periods, it is absolutely essential, first of all, to have the order of superposition of strata rigorously determined. Unless this is done, the most fatal mistakes may be made in Paleontalogical chronology.” And yet again, Part VI., No. 1: “In every stratigraphical research the fundamental requisite is to establish the order of superposition of the strata. Until this is accomplished, it is impossible to arrange the dates and make out the sequence of geological history.”ARSH August 14, 1883, page 513.1

    This would be all plain and easy enough, if the rocks always and everywhere were lying in their true and original position. But in some places “the rocks composing huge mountain masses have been so completely overturned that the highest beds appear as if regularly covered by others which ought properly to underlie them.” And in such instances he says the “apparent superposition may be deceptive.” How, then, are we to guard against deception? If huge mountain masses are lying in a directly inverted position to that of the valleys or the plains, how can we tell which one is “upside down”? Just here the geologist’s summum bonum, the fossil, comes in thus:—ARSH August 14, 1883, page 513.2

    “It is by their characteristic fossils that the divisions of the stratified rocks can be most satisfactorily made. Each formation being distinguished by its own assemblage of organic remains, it can be followed and recognized even amid the crumplings and dislocations of a disturbed region.” And again: “But it is mainly by the remains of plants and animals imbedded in the rocks that the geologist is guided in unraveling the chronological succession of geological changes.” And further, one of the uses of fossils is plainly stated to be, “to furnish a guide in geological chronology whereby rocks may be classified according to relative date, and the facts of geological history may be arranged and interpreted as a connected record of the earth’s progress.” From these statements it plainly appears that it is by the evidence of fossils that the “order of succession,” or “superposition,” or “relative age of strata” is made out. Yet under “Relative Age of Fossils,” is this equally plain statement: “The chronological sequence of fossils, must be determined first of all by the order of superposition of their enclosing strata;” because “there is nothing in the fossils themselves, apart from experience, to fix their date.”ARSH August 14, 1883, page 513.3

    Now here are two statements that we wish to place side by side, that it may be seen what they really say. And what they do say, although it may appear surprising, can be sustained by a greater number of quotations than are here already given.ARSH August 14, 1883, page 513.4

    “It is mainly by the remains of plants and animals [fossils] imbedded in the rocks that the geologist is guided in unravelling the chronological succession of geological changes.”ARSH August 14, 1883, page 513.5

    “The chronological sequence [succession] of fossils [remains] must be determined first of all by the order of superposition [chronological succession] of their enclosing strata.”ARSH August 14, 1883, page 513.6

    One of these says that the relative age of the rocks is determined by the fossils. The other says that the relative age of the fossils is determined by the rocks.ARSH August 14, 1883, page 513.7

    What is this but reasoning in a circle? Thus, the geologists say to us, for instance, “Here is a strata of rock that was deposited fifty millions of years ago.” But we ask, “How do you prove that?” They reply, “We prove it by the fact that in it are imbedded organic remains of the earliest forms of life that appeared on this planet.” But again we ask, “How do you prove that to be ‘the earliest form of life’?” the reply is, We prove that by the simple fact of their being imbedded in that particular strata of rock.” Yes, certainly, prove each by the other, and they will then both be true. All this may be geological, but it assuredly is not logical, nor is it according to established rules of evidence.ARSH August 14, 1883, page 513.8

    And now, to show that I have not pressed any of these statements into service to make a point, I would beg leave to continue this line a little further.ARSH August 14, 1883, page 513.9

    Under Part IV., “Relative Lapse of Time Represented by Strata and by the Intervals Between Them:” “As a rule, we should infer that the time represented by a given thickness of similar strata was less than that shown by the same thickness of dissimilar strata, because the changes needed to bring new varieties of sediment into the area of deposit would usually require the lapse of some time for their completion. But this conclusion might often be erroneous.” “But in all speculations of this kind we must bear in mind that the length of time represented by a given depth of strata is not to be estimated merely from their thickness or lithological characters. The interval needed for the transition from one stratum, or kind of strata to another may often have been more than equal to the time required for the formation of the strata on either side. But the relative chronological importance of the bars or lines in the geological record can seldom be satisfactorily discussed merely on lithological grounds; this must mainly be decided on the evidence of organic remains [fossils]. By this kind of evidence it can be made nearly certain that the intervals represented by strata were in many cases much shorter than those not so represented; in other words, that the time during which no deposit of sediment went on was longer than that wherein deposit did take place.”ARSH August 14, 1883, page 513.10

    Again, Part VI., No. 5: “The relative chronological value of the divisions of the geological record is not to be measured by mere depth of strata. Of “two sets of rocks, the total depth of both groups together may be, say one thousand feet. Elsewhere, we may find a single unbroken formation reaching a depth of ten thousand feet; but it would be utterly erroneous to conclude that the latter represented ten times the length of time shown by the two former.” “Fossil evidence furnishes the chief means of comparing the relative value of formations and groups of rock. A break in the succession of organic remains marks an interval of time often unrepresented by strata at the place where the break is found. The relative importance of these breaks, and therefore, probably, the comparative intervals of time which they mark, may be estimated by the difference of the facies of the fossils on each side.”ARSH August 14, 1883, page 513.11

    Further, Part V., under “Doctrine of Colonies:” “While the mere fact that one series of rocks lies unconformably on another proves the lapse of a considerable interval between their respective dates, the relative length of this interval may sometimes be demonstrated by means of fossil evidence, and by this along. But fossil evidence may be made to prove the existence of gaps which are not otherwise apparent.” “A few species may pass from one into the other, or perhaps every species may be different. In cases of this kind, when proved to be not merely local but persistent over wide areas, we must admit, notwithstanding the apparently undisturbed and continuous character of the original deposition of the strata, that the abrupt transition from one facies of fossils to the other must represent a long interval of time which has not been recorded by the deposit of strata.”ARSH August 14, 1883, page 513.12

    And so we are brought by this line of quotations again around the geological circle, thus:—ARSH August 14, 1883, page 514.1

    “The first and fundamental point is to determine accurately the order of superposition [sucessation] of the strata. Until this is done, detailed paleontalogical [fossil] classification may prove to be worthless.”—Part V. under Subdivisions by Modus of Fossils.ARSH August 14, 1883, page 514.2

    “When the order of successation of organic remains [fossils] among the stratified rocks has been determined, they become an invaluable guide in the investigation of the relative age of rocks and the structure of the land. And the true sucession [superposition] of strata may thus be sufficiently established.”—Part VI., No. 4.ARSH August 14, 1883, page 514.3

    And also this last quotation may be placed over against these: “The true order of superposition is decisive of the relative ages of stratified rocks.” “The chronological sequence of fossils must be determined first of all by the order of superposition of their enclosing strata.”ARSH August 14, 1883, page 514.4

    And thus the second time, after laying the Foundation of Geological Chronology, he has destroyed it. but this is Geological Science. Yet we cannot help wondering whether it does not come within the scope of Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 6:20.ARSH August 14, 1883, page 514.5

    (Concluded next week.)

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents