The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-05-05
Nisccii
Age of the World.

A question OF great importance with
diyines and men Of science at the present
day, is that of the age of our planet, and
the different changes which have taken
place upon it, as related in Genesis
One class contend that the different acts
of creation took place exactly as described
in the first chapter of Genesis, IN six So
lar days, and that all things were made
out of nothing in that time. Another
class believe that our planet was in exist
ence for thousands of years prior to the
first act recorded in Genesis, that it had
undergone vast changes, and that it had
been long in confusion, and was bereft
of life, when the command went forth,
"Let there be light" This class also
believe that the successive acts described
in Genesis took place in six common
days, furnishing the world with the exact
orders of creation as there described
Another class believe that the successive
acts of creation mentioned in Genesis,
took place in the exact order there de-
scribed, but that instead of the days
there mentioned being solar days, they
were indefinite periods of time-some of
them of great length-perhaps sixty
thousand years. This latter class en-
brace the greatest number of learned
geologists and diyines. In the last num-
Der of the BibliothecG Sacra, the Rev.
John o. Means, of East Medway, Mass,
presents his views at great length on this
subject, and takes the latter view of the
question, namely that the days men,
toned in the first chapter of Genesis, if
interpreted to mean indefinite periods of
time, would reconcile both science and
the Scriptures in every particular. He
employs some strong arguments In favor
of this view of the question. Thus, the
sun, moon, and stars, are said to be crea-
ted on the third day, therefore, the two
previous days could not be one of our
solar days, embracing one revolution OF
the earth on its axis in twenty-four hours,
with the sun to rule the day and the moon
to rule the night. This argument is in
controvertiblc. But what was the cause
of light before the sun was created ? He
sees no difficulty in this. He says, "the
material universe is full of light, ready
to be worked at word. Chemical ac-
ton, on vaster scale than man can fol-
low, is taking place every moment, and
floods of light are poured forth. Com
bustion is attended with light as well as
heat at may sound strange" he
again says, ttto say that the most intense
light is to be found, not on the earth, but
in it. The whole of the suns rays which
reach the earth, gathered to focus,
would not be SO intense light as the cen
ter of the globe. tseems pretty certain
that WITHIN the crust of the earth, is a
globe of fire, at least two thousand miles
in diameter" This opinion costs neither
him nor any man of science anything
whether it be true or false, but he departs
from reason and logic, by endeayoring to
establish one hypothesis by setting up
another. There are no positive proofs oi
the earth being crusted ball of fire.
We are not dependent on the sun for
light, as he has clearly stated, but he
does not seem to understand its true the
ory. 1t is produced by the vibrations OF
subtle medium diffused throughout
space Our planet is self-luminous, but
in degree less so than the sun, for there
is one glory of the sun, another of the
moon, andanother of the earth. Mans
eyes are constructed to see objects only
by great quantity of intense light; but
some beasts and fowls have their eyes
constructed to range the forest and field
by night as freely as man does during
the day, while during sunlight they can
scarcely see at all. A tribe of Africans
also-the Bosjesmen-remain in theii
caves during the day, and search for theil
food during night. From habit, We pre-
sumo, they have become nocturnal roam.
ers-men oWls-tkus showing that nat
ural night belongs to our planet; the un-
ceasing throbbings of its particles pro.
duce continual light this was the way,
no doubt, that light was produced in the
early days of the earth. Hugh Miller
brings forward some strong arguments
in favor of the great age of our planet,
and mentions number OF geological
changes requiring tens Of thousands Of
years to accomplish, which could not
have taken place in the short period Of
six thousand years, and is believed by
those who adhere to the solar SIX days in
terpretation of the Genesis narrative of
the creation Sir Charles LyeH believes
that it must have taken sixty-seven thou
sand years to form the delta of the Mis-
sissippi, and tiiirty-6Fe thousand years
for the Niagara river to form its present
channel from the Falls to Queenstown.
Nearly all the eminent geologists believe
this, and they consider they have facts to