Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
The Third Story

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Pensee Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors


VELIKOVSKIAN                                                                                                                             Vol. 1, No. 3

Charles Ginenthal

"And after all, what is a lie?  'Tis but the truth in masquerade';
and I defy historians, heros, lawyers, priests to put a fact without some leaven of a lie." --Lord George Byron, Don Juan [1]

Anything but history, for history must be false. --Sir Robert Walpole, Walpoliana[2]

It has been said that "history is the lie agreed upon" and that "the victors write history." This is especially true with respect to the doctrine of uniformity, promulgated in the last century by James Hutton and Charles Lyell.  With the acceptance of their doctrine came a historical revision in science--from catastrophism to uniformitarianism--that directed research along gradualist paths which admitted no major violent breaks in the geological record.  The concept, in 1950, was so deeply entrenched that, when Immanuel Velikovsky offered his catastrophic theory in Worlds in Collision it was met with a belligerent outcry of passion.  What Velikovsky had revived was the old debate which, in establishment uniformitarian circles, was regarded as settled for all time.  Every piece of evidence presented by Velikovsky in Earth in Upheaval to support his concept was explained away by his uniformitarian opponents as they invoked ad hoc gradualist models.  When this could not be done, as, for example, to explain away a 1300-foot beach in the Andes mountains and other high beaches elsewhere, without numerous intermediate beaches between them and the sea, the geologist and geophysicist critics ignored this evidence in unison--thereby denying the facts to themselves.  Velikovsky's correct celestial predictions, which ran counter to the prevailing expectations of the astronomical community, were also treated this way.

How, then, did this uniformitarian concept grow to be so influential?  In all geology classes taught at universities, this gradualist interpretation is presented (as it was when I studied geology) as the only correct, permissible approach to evidence.  The work of catastrophists like Velikovsky is remarked upon as beyond the pale, if mentioned at all, while James Hutton is promoted as a paragon of the scientific method.  But, just how accurate is the history presented and promoted in these texts?

The aim of this paper is to briefly explore the foundation of this outlook and examine the history of its first proponent, James Hutton, who has been, and still is, presented and promoted as a Baconian ideal.  What I submit is that Hutton, like Plato and Aristotle, derived his theory from a basic a priori assumption that was divorced from the clear evidence known to geologists of his own time.

Professor Lynn E. Rose has summed up the nature of this assumption regarding Charles Darwin, who theorized that the "geological and paleontological record was really incomplete and compressed and abbreviated, so that what is continuous only appears discrete, and what is slow only appears fast, and what appears non-simultaneous only appears simultaneous."[3]

Darwin had taken his assumptions from Charles Lyell, who had taken his assumptions from James Hutton.  Lyell believed that he had found four principles of science which proved valid for any examination of the processes going on in the Earth:

1.  There is a fundamental uniformity of natural laws.  All laws of nature are real and do not change.  Science must, therefore, be based only on known natural laws.

2.  There is a fundamental uniformity of process.  The past is also subject to natural laws; therefore, what we observe occurring by way of natural processes, which are natural laws in nature operating in the present, are the same processes that operated throughout the past.  These observable processes are the only ones that may be invoked to explain the past.

3.  There is a fundamental uniformity of rate, of gradualistic change.  Since all the changes observed on the Earth are gradual, all changes in the past must also have been gradual.

4.  There is a uniformity of state of changelessness.  The Earth, because it changes so slowly, had always looked very much the way it presently appears.

In 1832, William Whewell reviewed Lyell's views.[4]  He stated that when Lyell considers it a merit in a course of geological speculation, that it rejects any difference between the intensity of existing and of past causes, [and] we conceive that he errs no less than those whom he censures, [and] the effects must themselves teach us the nature and intensity of the cause which have operated; and we are in danger of error if we seek for slow, and shun violent, agencies further than the facts naturally direct us, no less than if we were parsimonious of time and periodical of violence. [Whewell wondered if man could assume he had been] long enough an observer to obtain the average of forces which are changing through immeasurable time.[5]

The first two principles, that natural laws are real and, when applied to processes of geology, have been going on throughout all time, were accepted by all the geologists of the 19th century.  These are concepts fundamental to all science.  However, the second two principles, that all changes arc gradual and that the Earth has always looked as it does presently, are clearly a priori assumptions.  The rate of change today is indeed slow, but how can anyone prove that this must always have been the case?  Let us submit this to a test with respect to raised beaches all around the world, outside glaciated regions.

Wave-cut beaches, hundreds of feet high, are found above and also below sea level.  What is most striking about these terraces is that they tend to correlate with each other in height and depth across broad geographical regions.  Charles Lyell argued that

episodic uplifts of the coast of Chile attending earthquakes of historical record [explained these beaches].  One of these quakes may raise the coast by an average height of about 3 feet (1 meter) over a stretch of 100 miles (160 kilometers).  Two thousand such shocks might produce a mountain range 100 miles long and 6,000 feet (1.8 kilometers) high.  If only one or two events occurred during a century, the situation would be the same as [that which] the Chileans had managed to tolerate.[6]

If the land rose gradually from the sea, then a whole series of beaches would have followed one above the other.  This has, indeed, been found in certain glaciated areas and is Prima facie evidence of gradual change.  However, this is not the case in Chile or in all regions outside the icecap cover.  Beaches are found over the globe at high altitude without numerous, intermediate ones present.  This clearly indicates that the changes were not all gradual but sudden and, therefore, catastrophic.  Darwin admitted that an earthquake of immense magnitude was required for their formation when he saw the South American beaches.[7] Yet, he and other geologists have suggested that these raised beaches are only local in origin and unrelated to the others.  However, Reginald Daly saw through this uniformitarian scheme to limit catastrophes to unique, local events.

It is derived from the theory that these beaches, all over the world, have been raised by forces shoving up from below.  At each place the receding waters left an abandoned beach line, the raised beach theory postulates a local uplift.  This theory requires uplifts, not only around all the world's oceans, but around all the world's lakes, and also along the banks of all (or almost all) the world's rivers; for there are raised terraces along the banks of all major rivers and abandoned shorelines around the world's lakes...... Often the highest terraces of such rivers as the Seine or [the] Elbe, when followed down to the mouth, are seen to blend with old shorelines which border the oceans at levels considerably higher than [those of] the present beaches." This blending of river terraces with ocean shorelines established the fact that the general recession of water levels [or rising of the land] is a worldwide phenomenon common to both rivers and oceans, which cannot be reasonably attributed to a multiplicity of local uplifts.[8]

Many geologists, when faced with this evidence of global catastrophism, simply ignore this finding, which is contrary to their uniformitarian belief system.  Since they cannot admit that something tremendous has created these upraised beaches all over the Earth, they cannot follow the evidence to what it catastrophically indicates.  Thus, when we test the gradualist concept that all changes are slow and find a global contradiction to it, the belief system comes into play and the evidence is ignored.  What would create such a global phenomenon except a global catastrophe?  The catastrophe has to be of either internal or external origin.  To date, only Charles Hapgood has suggested an internal mechanism that, if valid, could generate the world's raised beaches.  All other mechanisms are external and require major celestial catastrophes, even though we have not experienced one in our time.  Those geologists and astronomers of this century who understand this are beginning to move toward just such a position as a history for the Earth and the solar system.[9] Lyell, himself, had been aware of the celestial catastrophic concept; he had written about William Whiston's theory that "he retarded the progress of truth, diverting men from the investigation of the laws of sublunary nature and inducing them to waste time in speculations on the power of comets to drag waters of the ocean over the land,"[10] in his Principles of Geology.

Nonetheless, Hutton and Lyell, in essence, made the very same assumption that had been made by Aristotle, namely that the Earth was separated from events originating in the heavens.  The Earth was sealed off from any contact with large celestial bodies, even though it was then known that meteorites were real, solid objects.  Hutton and Lyell's theory excluded the Earth from any significant interaction with the celestial environment in which it existed.

The solar system is not divorced from the galaxy.  If a very tiny, ancient, brown dwarf star, such as Jupiter or Saturn, was to be attracted to the Sun, why should we assume as a fact that this has not occurred before and wreaked havoc among the planets?  Such a body or bodies passing through, or being captured by, our system could certainly generate Velikovskian-type scenarios.  To reject Velikovskian catastrophes, one must isolate the solar system from interacting with the bodies in the galactic environment.

A school of geological thought based on catastrophism had existed prior to and during the time in which Charles Lyell lived.  This school was represented by such eminent figures in science as Georges Cuvier, the father of paleontology, and Louis Agassiz, the discoverer of the Ice Ages.  Other notables of this school were Adam Sedgewick, William Buckland and Roderick Murchison, whose contributions explained the stratigraphical column.  Like his predecessors, one of the most outspoken of the catastrophists, Henry H. Horworth, maintained that, in the age of man, the Earth had experienced a global catastrophe which destroyed the megafauna.  Each of these scientists had done extensive geological field work and reported their evidence as support for their conclusion that the Earth had a catastrophic past.

Stephen J. Gould, the Harvard science historian who has reintroduced minor catastrophes into the concepts of evolution and geology, states:

Read literally, then and now, the geological record is primarily in a state of abrupt transitions at least in local areas, If sediments indicate that environments are changing from terrestrial to marine, we do not usually find an insensibly graded series of strata, indicating by grain size and faunal content that takes and streams have given way to oceans of increasing depth.  In most cases, fully marine strata lie directly atop terrestrial beds, with no signs of smooth transition.  The world of dinosaurs does not yield gradually to the realm of mammals; instead, dinosaurs disappear from the record in apparent concert with about half the species of marine organisms in one of the five major mass extinctions of life's history.[11]

Gould's statement is merely a subdued echo of what the 19th century catastrophists had documented again and again.  Velikovsky presented Georges Cuvier's words, which long ago said what Gould proposes, in a more honest, catastrophist manner:

The breaking to pieces, the raising up and overturning of the older strata [of the Earth] leave no doubt upon the mind that they have been reduced to the state in which we now see them by the action of sudden and violent causes; and even the force of the motions excited in the mass of waters is still attested to by the heaps of debris and rounded pebbles which are in many places interposed between the solid strata.  Life, therefore, has often been disturbed on the Earth by terrific events.  Numberless living beings have been the victims of these catastrophes; some, which inhabited the dry land, have been swallowed up by inundations; others, which peopled the waters, have been laid dry, the bottom of the sea having been suddenly raised; their very races have been extinguished forever and have left no other memorial of their existence than some fragments which the naturalist can scarcely recognize.[12]

Then, as now, the stratigraphical record did not exhibit evidence of gradual change.  The concept of the present as the key to the past made no sense at all when what should be found in the strata--gradual insensible change--was simply not found.  The record in the rock contradicted the uniformitarian explanation attributed to it.  Any axiom is inherently reversible; thus, "the past is the key to the present" must also be considered.  Cuvier had, indeed, sought gradualist explanations for what he discovered in the Earth, based on uniformitarian processes, but found them totally wanting.

The thread of operations is here broken, the march of nature is changed, and none of the agents which she now employs would have been sufficient for the production of her ancient works....

In short, all [now operating geological] causes would [neither] change in an appreciable degree the level of the sea nor raise [its surface a single stratum above] .... It has been asserted that the sea has undergone a general diminution of the waters; that the temperature of the globe is diminishing or increasing.  None of these cases could have overturned our strata; enveloped in ice large animals, with their flesh and skin; laid dry marine [life] ... and, lastly, destroyed numerous species and even entire genre.

Thus, we repeat, it is in vain that we search among the powers which now act at the surface of the Earth for causes sufficient to produce the revolutions and catastrophes, the traces of which are exhibited by its crust.[13]

Singly, or all together, the gradualist processes of the Earth failed to account for what was observed in the strata.  Thus, the catastrophists of the 19th century had abounding evidence of gigantic catastrophes but lacked a plausible, scientific cause.  It was Velikovsky who, like Ignatious Donnelly and William Whiston before him, reintroduced an extraterrestrial mechanism to explain the catastrophic nature of the crust.  Ever since he reintroduced this concept of massive extraterrestrial catastrophes in 1950, that theme has grown among the establishment scientists so that, today, they grudgingly admit that the Earth has a history of extraterrestrial impact events with comets, asteroids and meteorites; but they fail to admit the enormous, global, geological changes found on the Earth, the Moon, Mars and Venus that could never have been created by such small bodies.  Like the uniformitarians of last century and much of this century, they see the global catastrophic phenomena through astronomical-uniformitarian-colored glasses.


The great founder of seeing the Earth through a uniformitarian filter is James Hutton.  However, the evidence below will show that his view is a historical myth.  The real founder of gradualism was Charles Lyell, who denied catastrophism as, itself, a religious-geological myth.

One of the great concepts of the Hutton legend is that he was the earliest figure who applied the "scientific method" to the Earth--that he was a strict empiricist who patiently went into the field, examined the evidence first hand, took careful notes of his observations, and, by methods of Baconian induction, derived his conclusions as presented in his Theory of the Earth.  Stephen J. Gould discusses the emergence of this legend and cites texts that were, or are, influential in promoting this view:

The elevation of Hutton achieved its canonical form in the same work that classified [Thomas] Bumet [a biblical catastrophist] among the villains and presented the empiricist myth in its most influential form--Sir Archibald Geikie's The Founders of Geology (1897).  Geikie's Hutton is a paragon of objectivity, a cardboard ideal.  "In the whole of Hutton's doctrine, he vigorously guarded himself against the admission of any principle which could not be founded on observation.  He made no assumption.  Every step in his deduction was based upon actual fact and the facts were so arranged as to yield naturally and inevitably the conclusion which he drew from them." ([Geike] 1905, 314-315)  Bowing to the primal mystique of geology, Geikie identified the sources of these rigorous observations in field work: "He went far afield in search of facts .... He made journeys into different parts of Scotland .... He extended his excursions likewise into England and Wales.  For almost 30 years, he never ceased to study the natural history of the globe," (288)  Geikie then labeled the theory of his fellow Scotsman as "a coherent system by which the Earth became, as it were, her own interpreter." (305)

Geikie's mythical Hutton has been firmly entrenched in geological textbooks ever since.[14]

Modern geology texts, cited by Gould,[15] that echo the heroic legend which Geikie presented, state:

"The first to break formally with religion-shrouded tradition was James Hutton."[16]

"Modern geology was born in 1785, when James Hutton ... formu
lated the principle that the same physical processes that are operating in the present also operated in the past."[17]

"He made it his task to clear the geological Augean Stables of the encrusted catastrophist doctrine of over [1,0001 years."[18]

"'Throughout Hutton's 'Theory,' the inductive method of reasoning alone is used.  He made the Earth tell its own story."[19]

"Even though Hutton's ideas were backed by careful field observations, his paper was written in such a difficult style that it was not widely read."[20]

Wherever he had been, he found himself drawn to riverbeds and cutbanks, ditches and borrow pits, coastal outcrops and upland cliffs; and if he saw black, shining cherts in the white chalks of Norfolk, fossil clams in the Cheviot hills, he wondered why they were there.  He had become preoccupied with the operation of the Earth and he was beginning to discern a gradual and repetitive process measured out in dynamic cycles.[21]

This, then, is the story presented in practically every secondary school and university geology class in the world.  But what is the reality regarding this story?  Gould tells us that "[t]he traditional argument that Hutton induced his cyclical theory of the world machine from field observations, particularly of granite and unconformities, becomes even harder to understand when we recognize that Hutton's own record clearly belies his legend prima facie."[22]

Simple chronology, says Gould, is evidence enough.  Hutton had observed granite at only one uninformative location in the field by the time of his presentation.  He presented his theory of the Earth before the Royal Society of Edinburgh on March 7 and April 4, 1785, publishing an abstract later that year which described the theory essentially in its final form.  That summer, he visited several better field sites, including the outcrop at Glen Tilt, where he made a key observation.

Hutton saw his first unconformity at Loch Ranza, then another at the Tweed Basin, in 1787, two years after he first presented his theory.  In 1788, at Siccar Point, he found what became his most famous unconformity.  That same year, the first, full, written version of Hutton's theory appeared in volume I of the Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.  The two-volume Theory of the Earth with Proofs and Illustrations followed in 1795.

Gould concurs with G. L. Davies, who wrote The Earth in Decay.  A History of British Geomorphology, in believing that "Hutton developed his theory in its final form before he had ever seen an unconformity and when he had observed granite in only an inconclusive outcrop."[23]

In fact, Hutton himself openly admits that his theory was not derived through induction but from a priori premises, i.e., armchair deduction.  He states, "I just saw [granite], and no more, at Petershead and Aberdeen, but that was all the granite I had ever seen [1788 version].  I have since that time, seen it in different places; because I went on purpose to examine it."[24]

The concept that Hutton's uniformitarian theory was based on inductive science is sheer myth.  The accusation that has been brought against the catastrophists, that they derived their concept by deduction, is also a myth.  The catastrophists did the field work!  In spite of the exposure of this uniformitarian myth, it probably will still be presented and promoted in classrooms and textbooks that Hutton built his theory from observation in the field.  Tragically, some of those indoctrinated into this error will become teachers and journalists, continuing to believe and promulgate this historic, uniformitarian lie.

Catastrophists like Cuvier were the empiricists.  They, not Hutton, went into the field, examined earth strata in detail and based their conclusions on reading the geological record.  Hutton's theory and conclusion that earth strata were produced only by gradual processes were based on an assumption, not on data derived from field work.


The second myth about Hutton is that his theory was an attempt at a break with tradition shrouded by religion.  That is, his theory precluded any attempt to interpret the strata as support for a biblical catastrophe, and, thus, he was responsible for removing religion from geological analysis.  Again, this is contradicted by Hutton's own writings and the assumption underlying his concept.  If all processes on Earth were essentially gradual, then the Earth could not have been created by God for man, but was generated from natural phenomena and was indifferent to the human species.  Gould, however, shows that

[f]or the purpose of this cycling, [Hutton] advances an unswerving conviction that we might brand as crass hubris today, but that seemed self-evidently true in his age.  The Earth was constructed as a stable abode for life, in particular for human domination. (Emphasis added.) [U]niting means and ends, Hutton speaks of "this mechanism of' the globe, by which it is adapted to the purpose of being a habitable world. (1788, 211.)  Extending the argument to human life, he writes of, "a world contrived in consummate wisdom for the growth and habitation of a great diversity of plants and animals; and a world peculiarly adapted to the purpose of man, who inhabits all its climates, measures its extent and determines its production. (1788, 294-295.)[25] [Emphasis added.]

According to Hutton, the breakup of rock by, and the creation of soil from, weathering produced the layered strata found in the Earth and were contrived for plants and animals to develop in abundance.  This same geological process which caused flora and fauna to thrive was contrived for man to farm, so that he could dominate the Earth at his pleasure.  One can almost hear the Bible echoed by Hutton, as God said to Adam:

Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the Earth.  And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the Earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.  And to every beast of the Earth and to every bird of the air; and to everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.[26]

When Hutton was accused by Richard Kirwan that his thesis smacked of atheism,[27] he replied that the abyss of time he needed was based on evidence, as opposed to ignorance.  Claude C. Albritton, Jr., defends Hutton: "A theory built on the premise that the Earth was designed to sustain life he [Hutton] protested, can hardly be branded as atheistic."[28]

Although Hutton is regarded as the man who took geology out of the realm of Bible-believing catastrophists, his basic assumption that the cycles of the Earth were created for the well-being of humanity is little different from what was preached every Sunday from pulpits in Hutton's time.  Mott T. Greene restates G. L. Davies: "Each of Hutton's great theories--infinite time, cycles of erosion and deposition and the secular power of those cycles--was a repetition of geological ideas widespread in the [17th] century and their combination was based on a theological deduction."[29]


Because Hutton understood that weathering and erosion, over great stretches of time, would wear down continents and deposit continental detritus in the oceans, he realized he also needed a process to raise up the continents every once in a great while.  His solution to the problem was to invoke volcanic catastrophism on a level even more violent than that invoked by the catastrophists of the 19th century, whose work his theory is said to have replaced.

He conceived that the continents normally waste away gradually.  On the other hand, he granted the possibility that the continents may have, sometimes, been destroyed suddenly in the course of a single event.  If the lands are uplifted from the sea by thermal expansion, the expanded matter must have become less dense than before. [Hutton wrote,] "We may thus consider our land as placed upon pillars which may break and cause the continents to collapse back upon the sea floor." Furthermore, the uplift of the lands no less than their foundering, Hutton thought might be catastrophic, considering the "violent fracture and unlimited dislocation" of the uplifted strata.[30]

His gradualistic phase of geological development, though a major aspect of his theory, was counterbalanced by unabashedly violent catastrophes.

Hutton had written, in Theory of the Earth (in a passage expunged by John Playfair), that "the theory of the Earth that I would here illustrate is founded on the greatest catastrophes which can happen to the Earth, that is [continents] being raised from the bottom of the sea and sunk again." (Hutton, 1795: [Vol.] 11, [p.] 124.) To say that Hutton banished catastrophes from his theory is technically correct, for he refused to discuss them on the grounds that evidence was lacking.  But it should be clear that very few "catastrophists" in the history of geology ever invoked anything more violent than Hutton did himself.  The cataclysms were, for Hutton, part of the history of the Earth, but not part of his theory of it.[31]

Hence, in retrospect, three major concepts presented over the past century are myths.  Hutton, contrary to what is taught, did not develop his theory along inductive lines of research.  The assumption underlying all his thought was, essentially, a theological concept and had been envisaged by others at least a century before Hutton adopted these ideas.  Finally, in order to offset the processes of weathering and erosion, he raised and lowered his continents by cataclysms of almost unparalleled violence.

The question that deserves deeper investigation is, How did this erroneous legend manage to survive among academics for almost a century?

[1]     Canto XI, Stanza 1.

[2]     No. 141.

[3]     Lynn E. Rose, 'On Velikovsky and Darwin," KRONOS VII: 4 (Summer 1982): 38.

[4]     William Whewell, "Review of Lyell's Principles of Geology" vol. II, Quarterly Review, Vol. 93 (March, 1832): 103-132.

[5]     Ibid., ff

[6]     Claude C. Albritton, Jr., Catastrophic Episodes in Earth History (London, England, 1989), pp. 4748.

[7]     Charles Darwin, Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands and Parts of South America, Pt.  II, Ch. 15, ff.

[8]     Reginald Daly, "Rise and Fall of the Floodwaters--Historical Record," Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries (Nutley, New Jersey, 1975), p. 117.

[9]     The New York Times (November 1, 1988): p. C 1.

[10]     Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology, first ed. reprint (Chicago, 1990), vol. 1, p. 39.

[11]     Stephen J. Gould, Time's Arrow, Time's Clock (Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1987), p. 133.

[12]     Immanuel Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval (New York, 1955), pp. 13-14.

[13]     Ibid., pp. 14-15.

[14]     Gould, op. cit., pp. 67-68.

[15]     Ibid, p. 67.

[16]     Geology Today (Del Mar, California, 1973).

[17]     L. D. Leet and S. Judson, Physical Geology, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1971), p. 2.

[18]     U. Marvin, Continental Drift (Washington, DC, 1973), p. 35.

[19]     S. J. Bradley, The Earth and Its History (Boston, 1928), p. 364.

[20]     C. K. Seyfert and L. A. Sirkin, Earth History and Plate Tectonics (New York, 1973), p. 6.

[21]     J. McPhee, Basin and Range (New York. 1980), pp. 95-96.

[22]     Gould, op. cit., p. 70.

[23]     Ibid., p. 72.

[24]     Ibid.

[25]     Ibid., p. 74.

[26]     Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version Genesis 1: 28-30.

[27]     Richard Kirwan, "Examination of the Supposed Igneous Origin of Stony Substance." Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 5 (1793):51-81.

[28]     Albritton, Jr., op. cit., p, 28.

[29]     Mott T. Greene, Geology in the Nineteenth Century (Ithaca, New York, 1982), p. 30.

[30]     Albritton, Jr., op. cit., p. 31.

[31]     Green, op cit. Pp. 24-25

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665