MR, DENTON'S "ANSWER" NO ANSWER. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,—Mr Denton has failed to answer any one of my four queries. (1) In regard to the ago of the earth, I did not ask Mr Den tori what'he remembers as to the belief of "nearly every person in En<?- «?£.. W), en he wf*B a boy. I asked him. , ™™leges ( not allpged) that this world il only 6000 years old; ? " Very many of the bpsfc scientists now living are devout believers in Ohristiamty, and at the same time maintain that the earth is millions of years old. There is not one statement in the Bible contrary to this belief; and it is unfair for Mr Denton and the bigoted school to which he belongs to insinuate,^ they often do) that Christians are bound to believe, and generally do' bolieve, that the earth is only 6000 years old. . The insinuation is utterly false. On this subject Christian scientists range from 10,000,000 to 200,000,000; of years. (2) Mr Denton says ; " I made no assertion regarding the length of time necessary for the formation of coal. Then the reporters have been misleading the public, for jn a newspaper report of the 3rd mst. Mr Denton is reported to have said: The Green Island coal, though only a . baby coal, is many millions of years old-" and then,- in the Times of the same date, he ia reported to have said in reference to Pennsylvania coal; «The lignite coal found here—a young deposit—must be 200,000 years old, and the age of other coal is to be reckoned by millions of years." .In the Evening Star of the same date the very same words, are found. Did the reporters con' spire to misrepresent Mr Denton, or is Mr Denton denying his owii statements in order to get out of a difficulty? Whom are we to believe—the reporters or Mr Denton? But MiDenton assures us that even if he had made such an assertion (which he did not, he says),# he is under no obligation to reconcile it with Dr Dawson's estimate "! That is, Mr Denton is at porfeet liberty to give his audience as facts— the facts of science " —mere assertions of his own, which are directly contrary to the estimates and conclusions of acknowledged scientists ; but ho is under no obligation to let his hearers into the aoeret, and much less (if less can be) to.give reasons why he differs with the best geologists now. living! All this is at least heroic; the bravery of Leonidas was nothing to it. (3) Mr Denton says that he has not yet lectured in Dunedin on the Glacial period. Well, then, tKe reporters aro again to be blamed, for in the Times of the 2nd inst. Mr Denton is reported to have said: "We have to carry our thoughts to the time of .glacier-beds—the ice age—when nearly the whole of Europe and America lay a, vast sheet of. ice in perpetual motion. This must bo at least 100,000 years back, And in the Evening Star of the samo date we hud the following language attributed to Mr Demton : " In California there aredriftbeas, ; which we know were deposited in the glacial sr ice ago, when over nearly the whole of Europe, New England, and Canada lay a great sheet of ics. This could not have been less than 100,000 years ago." Now this assertion of his is diametrically opposed to the quite recent calculations of acknowledged American ■ scientists. But then what of that? because Mr Denton,, as he assures us, is under no obligation to pay attention to anybody but Mr Denton ! What is the difference between a pope in theology and one iv peology ? But Mr Denton says that he has not yet lectured on the Glacial period. Then whom are we. to believe—Mr Denton or the reporters ? (4) If Mr Denton has not yet seen the queries put to him in the Ballarat Courier, it is because, ostrich-fashion, he ran his head into the sand, and thus took very good' care not to see them. I believe in science, in geology, astronomy, &c, but I do not believe in the one-sided assertions, suppressions arid ' evasions of Mr Denton. It appears that lankeo guessing"' is now equivalent to scientific fact. Mr Denton accepts tho unproved . theory of Darwin, although lie knows (or should know) that a " mighty host" of the best scientists, now living " laugh him to scorn " for doing so.. But then he is under uo obligation to reconcile his crudities with tho estimates and conclusions of acknowledged scientists-acknowledged by all except William Denton. Of course not. " Let no dog bark while I speak." ■ °

And yet wo are asked to turn out oift children en masse to stuff them with the wild assumptions and ono-sided speculations of this mere sciolist, praised by himself and'a few editor, reporters and others, who know just as much about geology as they do about Sanskrit. Yes to givo our school children the facts of science V Ago Geologist" asks a few facts of "Geo logy, and, in reply, he receives a shower-bath ofßarcasm, and the operator is said to hava the facts of geology at his fingers' ends"! I.he gudgeons of Dunedin bite pretty well—l a™i &o-.. '_■ • Geology, JJunedm, February 7th.