the ocean, arrives at 74 millions of years as the geological age.
This matter was discussed by me formerly (Trans. R.D.S., 1899,
pp. 54 _et seq._). The assumption made is, I believe, inadmissible.
It is not supported by river analyses, or by the chemical
character of residual soils from sedimentary rocks. There may be
some convergence in the rate of solvent denudation, but--as I
think on the evidence--in our time unimportant.

14

entirely different method of approaching the question of the
Earth's age (which shall be presently referred to), it has been
contended that it is too low. It is even asserted that it is from
nine to fourteen times too low. We have then to consider whether
such an enormous error can enter into the method. The
measurements involved cannot be seriously impugned. Corrections
for possible errors applied to the quantities entering into this
method have been considered by various writers. My own original
corrections have been generally confirmed. I think the only point
left open for discussion is the principle of uniformitarianism
involved in this method and in the methods previously discussed.

In order to appreciate the force of the evidence for uniformity
in the geological history of the Earth, it is, of course,
necessary to possess some acquaintance with geological science.
Some of the most eminent geologists, among whom Lyell and
Geikie[1] may be mentioned, have upheld the doctrine of
uniformity. It must here suffice to dwell upon a few points
having special reference to the matter under discussion.