GENESIS AND GEOLOGY 345 



in geology than that in which the oldest remains of 

 such class or order have been found — that they orig- 

 inated, in fact, at unknown times. 



It is probable that, within certain general limits, we 

 may be justified in drawing certain conclusions as to 

 the chronological order in which some kinds of plants 

 and animals were introduced. 



It seems to be quite probable that water plants pre- 

 ceded land plants, that nothing higher than conifers 

 existed in the Paleozoic, and that the highest type of 

 plants first appeared in the Mesozoic. It is also prob- 

 able that the invertebrates preceded the vertebrates, 

 and that the latter began as fishes; that, after the lat- 

 ter appeared, amphibians and reptiles were intro- 

 duced, and later, mammals and birds. Finally, man 

 came in at the close of the geological record. 



The evolutionist assumes that most of the organic 

 forms that existed during and since the Primordial 

 are lost. If this is correct, it is impossible for us to 

 tell what those lost forms were, and it is, therefore, 

 evident that he is in no position to assert that an un- 

 known lost record conflicts with one that is known. 



The evolutionist admits — and he must do so, for it 

 is vital to his theory — that nearly all of the geological 

 record has not been discovered. 



It is evident that, if this is true, the small amount 

 that is known cannot be used as a substitute for the 

 vast amount unknown. If one makes use of this frag- 

 mentary account in this way, the burden of proof is 

 on him to show that the small fragments of geological 

 history which he uses give a correct idea of the enor- 

 mous lost volume. 



If we are told that this or that conflicts with the 

 geological account of creation, we may well ask, what 

 is the geological account? To this the answer must 

 follow, most emphatically and heartily by the evolu- 



