Changes

*Vallisneri, who together with [[Leibniz]] urged Louis Burguet to consider ''biblical time'' as ''too restricted'', '''could add nothing more''' to his early conviction that the earth is ''"of '''nearly incomprehensible antiquity'''"''. Rappaport (p.195-7)<ref name="Rappaport1997"/>|group=note}} Anything else, of course, could not be expected from a people whose [[Big Bang theory|conceptions of the development of the universe]] are limited to a recognition of the [[Geologic_system#The_system|alternation of seasons]] and the [[Abiogenesis|insistent mysteries of life]] and death.''<div style="padding-left:40px;">&mdash; Arthur Holmes <ref name="Holmes1913">{{cite web |title= The age of the earth |author= Arthur Holmes |publisher= Harper |place=London |year= 1913 |pages=2,11 |url= https://archive.org/details/ageofearth00holmuoft |accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote=As an example of one of the more extravagant demands, mention may be made of Darwin’s estimate in 1859 of the time elapsed since the latter part of the Cretaceous period. From the rate of chalk erosion in Kent, he deduced that the excavation of the Wealden valleys had required a period of 300 million years. Referring to this estimate, Jukes gave his opinion that while it might be a hundred time too great, it was equally probable that it was hundred times too small. Evidently 30,000 million years, in the absence of more reliable data, was not considered an absurdly excessive period for the erosion of the Weald. It should be noticed, however, that after the publication of Thomson’s views, Darwin withdrew this estimate from the origin of species.}}</ref></div>

*Vallisneri, who together with [[Leibniz]] urged Louis Burguet to consider ''biblical time'' as ''too restricted'', '''could add nothing more''' to his early conviction that the earth is ''"of '''nearly incomprehensible antiquity'''"''. Rappaport (p.195-7)<ref name="Rappaport1997"/>|group=note}} Anything else, of course, could not be expected from a people whose [[Big Bang theory|conceptions of the development of the universe]] are limited to a recognition of the [[Geologic_system#The_system|alternation of seasons]] and the [[Abiogenesis|insistent mysteries of life]] and death.''<div style="padding-left:40px;">&mdash; Arthur Holmes <ref name="Holmes1913">{{cite web |title= The age of the earth |author= Arthur Holmes |publisher= Harper |place=London |year= 1913 |pages=2,11 |url= https://archive.org/details/ageofearth00holmuoft |accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote=As an example of one of the more extravagant demands, mention may be made of Darwin’s estimate in 1859 of the time elapsed since the latter part of the Cretaceous period. From the rate of chalk erosion in Kent, he deduced that the excavation of the Wealden valleys had required a period of 300 million years. Referring to this estimate, Jukes gave his opinion that while it might be a hundred time too great, it was equally probable that it was hundred times too small. Evidently 30,000 million years, in the absence of more reliable data, was not considered an absurdly excessive period for the erosion of the Weald. It should be noticed, however, that after the publication of Thomson’s views, Darwin withdrew this estimate from the origin of species.}}</ref></div>

|}

|}

In his 1859 ''[[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection|Origin of species by means of Natural selection]]'', Darwin declared that ''‘He who can read Sir Charles Lyell’s grand work on the Principles of Geology, which the future historian will recognise as having produced a revolution in natural science, yet does not admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of time, may at once close this volume.’''<ref name="KelvinOnDynamics"/><ref>{{cite book |title= On the Origin of Species |author= Charles Darwin |year=1859 |pages=282 |edition=1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RdIp_XRopbcC&q=incomprehensibly+vast#v=snippet&q=incomprehensibly%20vast&f=false}}</ref> Darwin based his views on Hutton and Lyell who were dedicated not to modern notions of geological dynamism but to antique ones of geological steady-state.<ref name="GOULDinNYT"/> It is believed a feeling of guilt at having helped Darwin arrive at his heretical theories was a factor that might have contributed to FitzRoy’s tragic decision to suicide on 30th April, 1865.<ref>{{cite web |title= FitzRoy's Bicentenary|publisher= The Friends of Charles Darwin |url=http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/fitzroy/ |quote= The ridicule over the weather forecasts was probably the last straw that drove FitzRoy to suicide on 30th April, 1865. But there were numerous other factors that might have contributed to his tragic decision: his failed New Zealand governorship; a feeling of guilt at having helped Darwin arrive at his heretical theories; his belief that suicide was a family trait; who knows what else might have helped push him over the edge? |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref><ref name="BBC67">{{cite web |title=The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Part 6&7 |publisher=BBC |year=1978 |pages=7-part series Part 6&7, 1h:49min:35sec  |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXY-EWZU5qo&feature=youtu.be&t=6575

In his 1859 ''[[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection|Origin of species by means of Natural selection]]'', Darwin declared that ''‘He who can read Sir Charles Lyell’s grand work on the Principles of Geology, which the future historian will recognise as having produced a revolution in natural science, yet does not admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of time, may at once close this volume.’''<ref name="KelvinOnDynamics"/><ref>{{cite book |title= On the Origin of Species |author= Charles Darwin |year=1859 |pages=282 |edition=1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RdIp_XRopbcC&q=incomprehensibly+vast#v=snippet&q=incomprehensibly%20vast&f=false}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|For partisans of [[Clifford's injunction]] closing this volume at once definitely appears to be a highly commendable suggestion.|group=note}} Darwin based his views on Hutton and Lyell who were dedicated not to modern notions of geological dynamism but to antique ones of geological steady-state.<ref name="GOULDinNYT"/> It is believed a feeling of guilt at having helped Darwin arrive at his heretical theories was a factor that might have contributed to FitzRoy’s tragic decision to suicide on 30th April, 1865.<ref>{{cite web |title= FitzRoy's Bicentenary|publisher= The Friends of Charles Darwin |url=http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/fitzroy/ |quote= The ridicule over the weather forecasts was probably the last straw that drove FitzRoy to suicide on 30th April, 1865. But there were numerous other factors that might have contributed to his tragic decision: his failed New Zealand governorship; a feeling of guilt at having helped Darwin arrive at his heretical theories; his belief that suicide was a family trait; who knows what else might have helped push him over the edge? |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref><ref name="BBC67">{{cite web |title=The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Part 6&7 |publisher=BBC |year=1978 |pages=7-part series Part 6&7, 1h:49min:35sec  |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXY-EWZU5qo&feature=youtu.be&t=6575

|accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote=}}</ref>

|accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote=}}</ref>

|url= http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-6841#back-mark-06841.f7

|url= http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-6841#back-mark-06841.f7

|quote= In [Tait] 1869, p. 429, Tait had quoted [Charles Darwin]'s conjecture, based on his estimate of time needed for the denudation of the Weald, that far longer than 300 million years must have elapsed since the latter part of the secondary period (Origin, p. 287). In response to criticisms in the Saturday Review, 24 December 1859, however, [Charles Darwin] halved his estimate in the second edition of Origin, and removed the discussion altogether from the third edition.

|quote= In [Tait] 1869, p. 429, Tait had quoted [Charles Darwin]'s conjecture, based on his estimate of time needed for the denudation of the Weald, that far longer than 300 million years must have elapsed since the latter part of the secondary period (Origin, p. 287). In response to criticisms in the Saturday Review, 24 December 1859, however, [Charles Darwin] halved his estimate in the second edition of Origin, and removed the discussion altogether from the third edition.

|accessdate=21 July 2015}}</ref>. In 1871 he even named Kelvin ''“an odious spectre”'' that came so that Darwin could not ''“rely much on pre-[[Silurian]] times.”''<ref>{{cite web  

|accessdate=21 July 2015}}</ref> In 1871 he even named Kelvin ''“an odious spectre”'' that came so that Darwin could not ''“rely much on pre-[[Silurian]] times.”''<ref>{{cite web  

|title= Darwin, C. R. to Wallace, A. R., Letter 7858

|title= Darwin, C. R. to Wallace, A. R., Letter 7858

|author=Charles Darwin

|author=Charles Darwin