Kelvin computes, then at the same rate, it must have been worn down an
average of 1660 feet,--38% more than remains. Is this not a fair
estimate for the amount of erosion and the age of the world? How high
must the land have averaged, if the world is even 60,000,000 years
old?

If this be true, how long would it have taken erosion in the past, to
reduce the land to its present configuration,--the short period
indicated by science, or the immensely long period required by
evolution?

But the evolutionists are clinging to the radio-activity theory
desperately, an S.O.S. of a lost cause, depending, like evolution, on
a great many assumptions, and unproven hypotheses. The assumption is
that a radio-active substance, like uranium, "decays," or passes into
many other substances, of which radium is one, finally producing lead
in 1,000,000,000 years or more. From this theory, Prof. Russell
concludes that the earth is 4,000,000,000 to 8,000,000,000 years old,
and the sun is older still. During this inconceivably long period, the
sun was giving out as much heat as at present, which is 2,200,000,000
times as much as the earth receives. The heat of the sun can not be
accounted for, by either the combustion or cooling off theory. By the
commonly accepted contraction theory, the heat has been maintained
only about 20,000,000 years. How could it have been sustained
4,000,000,000 to 8,000,000,000 years? Prof. Russell answers: "We must
therefore _suppose_ that energy from an 'unknown source' becomes
available at exceedingly high temperatures.... We can not do more than
_guess_ where it is hidden." Is this scientific? This theory,
moreover, is interlocked with Einstein's theory of Relativity, which
holds that all energy has mass, and all mass is equivalent to