<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
#tab{width: 714px; background-color: #cccccc;}
#tap{margin: 16px 0; font: 11px Arial;}
#subj{font: 22px sans-serif; color: #3300ff ; margin: auto auto 13px auto;}
#imag{background-color:#cccccc; padding-top: 11px;}
#imag1{max-width: 714px; background-color: #cccccc; padding: 14px; border: 11px double red;}
#content{background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #FFFFFF; font-size: xx-small;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<center>
<table id="tab">
<tr>
<td align="center">
<p id="tap">
If you can't look at this Ad as images are invisible? <a href="http://www.btang.me.uk/l/lt1XPBT3048UTTI85AM/89PYWRMT344LIFC4787KU11KVW54553465JSG3221430150"> Make sure to hit this to reload 'em.</a>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center" style="padding: 10px;">
<a target="" href="http://www.btang.me.uk/l/lt1FYWY3048MFHR85SC/89EOBNJH344VETC4787PE11CYN54553465XRW3221430150" id="subj"> Enjoy, a floating resort...to Alaska </a>
</td>
</tr>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<tr>
<td align="center" id="imag" >
<a href="http://www.btang.me.uk/l/lt1HYFM3048BEON85LV/89HEALTB344CFLX4787JF11DCL54553465FDY3221430150"><img src="http://www.btang.me.uk/im/GUX3048NWFCX85JQNVO/89VC344OHVSLE4787GMN11LPRYUV54553465BDQY3221430150/img0858988.jpg" id="imag1" ></a>
</td>
</tr>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<tr>
<td align="center">
<a href="http://www.btang.me.uk/l/lc4QPFV3048NOMC85ME/89APSHNN344VRTI4787IH11XAH54553465UXI3221430150"><img src="http://www.btang.me.uk/im/YRJ3048RHONV85GDASH/89AI344CJYQFQ4787MNY11WNCEJA54553465OITX3221430150/img1858988.jpg"/></a>
</td>
</tr>
<TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR>
<table style="width: 714px; background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 3px;">
<tr>
<td>
<span id="content">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p align="right" style="font: 15px;">
nevertheless, while in this and many kindred phiages sir c. lyell protests against the bias here ilhirated, he seems himself not completely hi
from it. Though he<B>utterly rejects the old hypothesis that all over the Earth the same continuous strata lie one upon another</B>in regular order,
like the coats of an onion, he still writes as though geologic “systems” do thus succeed each other. A reader of his Manual would certainly suppose him
to believe, that the Primary epoch ended, and the secondary epoch began, all over the world at the same time—that these terms really correspond to
distinct universal eras. when he hiumes, as he does, that the division between Cambrian and Lower Silurian in America, answers chronologically to
the division between Cambrian and Lower Silurian in Wales—when he takes for granted that the partings of Lower from Middle Silurian, and of Middle
Silurian from Upper, in the one region, are of the same dates as the like partings in the other region; does it not seem that he believes geologic
“systems” to be universal, in the sense that their separations were in all places contemporaneous? Though he would, doubtless, disown this as an
article of faith, is not his thinking unconsciously influenced by it? Must we not say that, though the onion-coat hypothesis is dead, its spirit is </p>
<BR /><span style="font-family: sans-serif, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 8px; color: #ffffff;"></span>
<p align="center">traceable, under a transcendental form, even in the conclusions of its antagonists? Let us now consider another leading geological doctrine,—the doctrine that
strata of the same age contain like fossils; and that, therefore, the age and relative position of any stratum may be known by its fossils. While the
theory that strata of like mineral characters were everywhere deposited simultaneously, has been ostensibly abandoned, there has been accepted the
theory that in each<B>geologic epoch similar plants and animals existed everywhere; and that, therefore, the epoch to</B>which any formation belongs
may be known by the organic remains contained in the formation. Though, perhaps, no leading geologist would openly commit himself to an unqualified </p>
<BR />
<p align="right">hiertion of this theory, yet it is tacitly hiumed in current geological<U>reasoning. This theory, however, is scarcely more tenable</U>than the other. It cannot be
concluded with any certainty, that formations in which similar organic remains are found, were of contemporaneous origin; nor can it be safely
concluded that strata containing<i>different organic remains are of different ages. To most readers these will</i>be startling propositions; but they are
fully admitted by the highest authorities. Sir Charles Lyell confesses that the test of organic remains must be used “under very much the same
restrictions as the test of mineral composition.” Sir Henry de la Beche, who variously ilhirates this truth, remarks on the great incongruity
there must be between the fossils of our carboniferous rocks and those of the marine strata deposited at the same period. But though, in the
abstract, the danger of basing positive conclusions on evidence derived from fossils, is recognized; yet, in the concrete, this danger is generally
disregarded. The established convictions respecting the ages of strata, have been formed in spite of it; and by some geologists it seems altogether
ignored. throughout his siluria, sir r. murchison habitually hiumes that the same, or kindred, species, lived in all parts of the Earth at the same
time. In Russia, in Bohemia, in the United States, in South America, strata are clhied as belonging to this or that part of the silurian system, .</p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<tr><td></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td></td></tr>
</table>
</center>
<center><a href="http://www.btang.me.uk/unsCCPQ3048AVV85COD/89CAFNB344XTR4787NJTKA11X54553465QJAF3221430150"><img src="http://www.btang.me.uk/im/TUF3048VYUOY85SKBIP/89FK344XSNVOF4787LBB11VBYMMA54553465TGWA3221430150/img2858988.jpg"/></a></center>
</body>
</html>