145 
taken without at all weakening the force of the argument it has been chosen 
to illustrate. Flint pebbles are very much softer when dug out of the 
chalk than they afterwards become when exposed to the sun and air. 
Even in their hardest condition, a few days’ rolling by a stream, or by the 
action of waves in contact with each other, is all that is required to give 
them a rounded form and water-worn appearance. 
Mr. Reddie. — I had only a few observations to offer with regard to 
Mr. Warington’s argument as to the pebbles, and they were rather in 
support of Dr. Burnett’s conclusions. I venture to deny that there 
is proof that round pebbles are always “ rolled,” as has been too generally 
assumed. I find in gravel a vast number, perhaps a majority, of pebbles 
that have been originally formed in a round shape, with a centre or nucleus, 
and layers, as it were, all round, like miniature strata. Some pebbles, no 
doubt, have had their corners rubbed off by rolling ; but others, and perhaps 
most of them, have as evidently been originally crystallized and formed in 
the round form in which they are found. Then it has been said by Mr. 
Warington that the presence of a bone, or other animal remains, found 
embedded in strata, proves that death must have existed for ages in the 
world — 
Mr. Warington. — I wish to state that I have expressed no opinion as to 
whether the conclusions arrived at by geologists are just or unjust. I have 
simply referred to the kind of argument used by geological sceptics to sup- 
port their conclusions. 
The Chairman. — So far as I understood Mr. Warington, he did not 
adopt the arguments which he used. He had simply stated that the sceptic, 
if he had been present, might have argued that way. 
Mr. Reddie. — It appears to me that it is of no consequence whether the 
arguments advanced by Mr. Warington are adopted by him or not. Having 
been advanced by him in discussion, whether as his own or as those of 
an imaginary sceptic, I think they ought to be answered. When a theory is 
brought forward by geologists, from which certain deductions are drawn 
contrary to the teaching of Revelation, we are not only entitled, but bound to 
examine the evidence by which it is supported. Now what proof do geologists 
give of the antiquity of the sedimentary rocks ? The arguments formerly used 
in support of the long periods which must have elapsed from the creation have 
recently been changed. Dr. Burnett has presented us with some new facts 
and arguments against the theory of distinct creations ; but in Sir Charles 
Lyell’s latest work on the Antiquity of Man, he had not attempted to 
maintain them, or rather he had plainly given them up. And now I have in 
my hand an extract from an able review of Sir William Logan’s Geological 
Sur vey of Canada, which appeared in The Times of the 21st of October, 1864, 
in which the reviewer observes, with special reference to those assumed 
immense geological periods, as to which Mr. Warington — or his “sceptic” — 
are so positive, that, “ in order to expose the fallacy of such an argument, it 
would only be necessary to appeal to a few of those Canadian geological 
monuments, the true interpretation of which, ivc believe, will establish the fact 
