140 
upon analogy ; and while Dr. Burnett admitted that the geologists were right 
in their reasoning so far, he asserted that they were not justified in fur- 
ther assuming, upon the same evidence, that those animals existed at a -very- 
remote period. But what was the evidence upon which geologists based 
their conclusions ? They found a hone incased in a certain rock, and they 
asked themselves the question how it had become incased there. I will take, 
for instance, the case of a bone found imbedded in sandstone. How did it 
get there ? the geologist asked. It could not be supposed that it was purposely 
buried there. It was therefore very plain that the animal must have died in 
that position, and that the rock must have accumulated round it in process 
of time. The animal must have died amongst loose sand, and the sand 
having accumulated round it, gradually became hard, until it formed sand- 
stone. This was the kind of reasoning adopted by geologists. I am no 
going to say that the conclusion is right or wrong. But it is a mode 
of reasoning which is entirely based upon analogy; and until the facts were 
otherwise accounted for, geologists had clearly as much right to assume that the 
bone had been in the rock for a long period, as they had in the first instance 
to assume that it was a bone at all. Therefore it strikes me that the argument 
of Dr Burnett was open to objection on this ground. It appears to me t a 
if the reasoning of geologists was just in the first instance, it was no presump- 
tion on their part to take the further step, unless it could be shown that the 
evidence upon which they based their conclusions was msufficient. I will 
take the case which has been instanced by Dr. Burnett himself,— the case of 
the flint pebbles. It is found that pebbles are round, and geologists con- 
clude that they are made round by the action of running water. Here, 
ao-ain, they were reasoning from analogy ; for they found that pebbles exposed 
to the action of water are made round, and they had therefore concluded 
that round pebbles must have been at some time or other exposed to the 
action of such water. And they further asserted that if pebbles had been 
made round by the action of water, the process must have occupied so 
much time. I think this is a very fair assumption, and until those who 
hold a different opinion are able to disprove it by facts, they have no 
rio-ht to complain of the views advanced by geologists.. I am not going to 
say that geologists are right or wrong, but I certainly think that Dr. 
Burnett had found fault with them unjustly; because they were not 
making hypotheses, but were reasoning from facts, as far as they knew them. 
What they want, if they were wrong, is more facts to set them right. 
Until those facts were adduced, it was useless to argue that geologists had no 
grounds for the conclusions which they arrived at. I have only one more 
observation to make. I think it is rather a grave assumption on the part of 
Dr Burnett to say that there was no death in the world before the fall of 
man. It is contrary to the opinion of a very large proportion of the best 
scholars of the present day, including those who were most opposed to the 
innovations of science, and to me it appears to be very dangerous ground to 
take. I have also a word to add with regard to the remarks which had laUen 
from one of the speakers who preceded me. I think that Captain is ourne 
