{"id":31159,"date":"2016-09-18T09:32:46","date_gmt":"2016-09-18T08:32:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/?p=31159"},"modified":"2018-03-31T06:53:01","modified_gmt":"2018-03-31T05:53:01","slug":"archive-5144","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/archive-5144\/","title":{"rendered":"Archive 5144"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is the html version of the file https:\/\/data6.blog.de\/media\/003\/5489003_89ff1e12aa_d.pdf. Google<\/strong> automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Page 1<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Frederik A. G. Klee (November 26, 1808-March 13, 1864) and Caroline Sophie Marie<\/p>\n

Frederikke Nicoline v. Moth Klee (July 14, 1812- December 14, 1884) (See Genealogy<\/p>\n

table II)<\/p>\n

Frederik was the only child of Heinrich Gottlieb von Klee and wife Anna Elizabeth Fabritius.<\/p>\n

Frederik and Anna were parents of Anna Elisabeth (Elise) Caroline Klee , Dr. Frederik Emil<\/p>\n

Klee and Waldemar G. Klee. More details will be found on the Index page and in other links<\/p>\n

from there.<\/p>\n

___________________<\/p>\n

FREDERIK A.G. KLEE Brief biography, by Johannes C. H. R. Steenstrup.<\/p>\n

Editor’s note: I am including a translation of the text from this Danish Website<\/p>\n

<https:\/\/runeberg.org\/dbl\/9\/0211.html> because it contains some information<\/p>\n

about Frederik A. G. Klee and his father that we were lacking. However, it contains some<\/p>\n

misleading information about both father and son as well. The father, Heinrich Gottlieb von<\/p>\n

Klee, was born of German ancestry and raised in Riga, Latvia, which had been under<\/p>\n

Swedish rule, but passed into Russian hands when Russia defeated Sweden in the early 18th<\/p>\n

century. Germans had settled in the Baltic countries as far back as the year 1200, when the<\/p>\n

Northern Crusades began. Their allegiance to their German origins evaporated over the<\/p>\n

centuries. Once in the Russian fold, the Baltic Germans were devoted citizens of Russia and<\/p>\n

played major roles in the fields of science, politics and the military of their mother country. In<\/p>\n

that sense, Heinrich G. von Klee was a Russian. See below for more commentary. (Gerald D<\/p>\n

Klee, Webmaster)<\/p>\n

This is translated from the website by Barbara Snead, Collection Management Librarian,<\/p>\n

Goucher College<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Page 2<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Klee, Frederik Alexander Gottlieb, 1808-64, <\/strong>Postembedsmand og historisk<\/p>\n

Forfatter (Postal official and historical author”)<\/p>\n

“Frederik Klee, born in R\u00f8rvig , Denmark , Nov. 26, 1808. The father, Heinrich G. Klee, was<\/p>\n

Russian by birth, (He was from Riga, Latvia, which belonged to Russian at that time in<\/p>\n

history.) but since he was married to a Danish woman he entered the Danish service and<\/p>\n

distinguished himself as a brave and clever officer. When Russia (Heinrich’s “fatherland)”<\/p>\n

was attacked by Napoleon in 1812 he returned, entered the Russian army, and participated in<\/p>\n

the next years campaign; shortly thereafter he was the commander in Neum\u00fcnster and<\/p>\n

provided vital services to Denmark. After the truce he resided alternately in Russia ,<\/p>\n

Denmark and Norway ; (died in Russia in 1829).<\/p>\n

The son, who had accompanied the father to his alternating places of residence,<\/p>\n

matriculated in 1826 at the University of Copenhagen , took the law degree exam in 1831,<\/p>\n

became an associate in 1834, then achieved full responsibility in 1840 under the general<\/p>\n

directorship of the postal service, then in 1847 was chief of the postal service’s revisions<\/p>\n

office.<\/p>\n

In 1852 he obtained the title of justice councilor. From 1842-43 he was commissioned to<\/p>\n

travel around the country to create a proposal for the revision of postal connections, and his<\/p>\n

plan went into effect with the new regulation. Klee demonstrated overall warm enthusiasm<\/p>\n

for our communications system and reaped great gain from its development; in this way he,<\/p>\n

together with Dr. C.M. Poulsen, worked out the first practicably based proposal for a<\/p>\n

railway, steamship and telegraph system for Denmark and Schleswig (1850). In 1862 he was<\/p>\n

appointed as the government\u2019s financial administrator for the railroad of Jutland and Funen.<\/p>\n

This clearly talented and hard working man at the same time also cultivated interests of a<\/p>\n

totally different sort. Already as a student he had pursued studies in history and had won the<\/p>\n

university\u2019s gold medal for a thesis on the relationship of R\u00fcgen [German island] to Denmark<\/p>\n

before 1658.<\/p>\n

He published practically oriented historical guide-books as well as authoritative and well-<\/p>\n

crafted<\/p>\n

comprehensive handbooks on \u201cEurope since 1815\u201d (1837), \u201c America , chiefly in Recent<\/p>\n

Times\u201d (1837-39), \u201cHistory of the European States since 1815\u201d (4 vol., 1860-63).<\/p>\n

In his historic works he combined the geological and the paleontological; the theories he put<\/p>\n

forth on the ancient conditions of the earth and on various ethnographic relations of the past<\/p>\n

(such as \u201cThe Flood\u201d, 1842, \u201cRelics of the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages\u201d, 1854) were<\/p>\n

noteworthy for their bold originality.<\/p>\n

From 1858 to 1864 Klee represented the second precinct of the Randers district in<\/p>\n

Parliament. He died on March 13 1864. Klee married Caroline Sophie Frederikke Marie<\/p>\n

Nicoline Moth in 1837 (born 14 July 1812, died 14 December 1884), daughter of Major<\/p>\n

F.C.P.M.”<\/p>\n

Erslew, Forf. Lex.<\/p>\n

Illustr. Tid. 20. Marts 1864.<\/p>\n

Johannes C. H. R. Steenstrup.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Page 3<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

* [EDITOR’S NOTE: Re: In an otherwise reliable discussion, the assertion by J. Steenstrup<\/em><\/p>\n

(1844-1935), the renowned historian who was the author of this biographical entry, does not<\/em><\/p>\n

give F A Klee sufficient credit for his scientific contributions. In his book on the geological<\/em><\/p>\n

history of the earth, Klee was extremely accurate in many details and in some respects he<\/em><\/p>\n

was almost a century ahead of his time. For example, in his 1842 book about the original<\/em><\/p>\n

state of the Earth (Klee, Frederik. Syndfloden. En r\u00e6kke af geologiske Hypotheser fremsatte<\/em><\/p>\n

fra et verdenshistorisk Standpunct. 1842) he proposed that at a much earlier time the<\/em><\/p>\n

continents were fused together in a massive supercontinent (that we now call Pangaea) that<\/em><\/p>\n

later split up into the present continents. In 1912 Wegener published a similar hypothesis and<\/em><\/p>\n

was ridiculed for it. Much later, in the 20th century, proofs of Tectonic Plate Theory<\/em><\/p>\n

explained the mechanisms underlying continental shifts. This confirmed the hypotheses of<\/em><\/p>\n

both Klee and Wegener, but by that time F A. Klee’s contribution had been forgotten. When<\/em><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Klee\u2019s book came out in 1842, geology was not yet a full fledged science. No one<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    theorizing on geology at that time was entirely accurate. Some of Klee\u2019s speculations turned<\/em><\/p>\n

    out to be invalid, but he was more often right than many of his contemporaries. Incidentally,<\/em><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Klee was only 34 years of age when the book was first published (in Danish). It was widely<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      popular and was translated into Swedish, German and French. I might add that Chapter II, <\/em><\/p>\n

      on Fossils , is so accurate that it would not be out of place in a modern textbook. Although<\/em><\/p>\n

      Klee’s book is popularly written, he references the work of many well known contemporary<\/em><\/p>\n

      and earlier scientists. The reader can scroll down on this page to further discussion, as well<\/em><\/p>\n

      as an English translation Le Deluge (The Flood), by Frederik Klee] The second half of the<\/em><\/p>\n

      book contains descriptions of creation myths of various cultures. I did not include that<\/em><\/p>\n

      section. Frederik Klee was only 34 years of age when this book was published in Danish.<\/em><\/p>\n

      Gerald D Klee, Editor and Webmaster; <\/em>Gerald D Klee, MD, is a great grandson of Frederik<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. G. Klee<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        _________________<\/p>\n

        Historical notes on Frederik Alexander Klee from family<\/strong><\/p>\n

        sources in Denmark:<\/strong><\/p>\n

        The Danish King, Frederik VI, supported Heinrich\u2019s only son, Frederik<\/p>\n

        Alexander Klee during his<\/p>\n

        study of law. Mogens Klee, a Danish descendant of Dr Frederik Emil Klee,<\/p>\n

        told me<\/p>\n

        \u201cFrederik Alexander was a universal genius. He became chief of a sector of<\/p>\n

        the Danish<\/p>\n

        Post authorities and he introduced the use of stamps to Denmark in 1854.<\/p>\n

        He wrote important works on history, geography, geology and other<\/p>\n

        subjects.\u201d<\/p>\n

        (The Royal Danish Library has over thirty listings of publications that<\/p>\n

        can be seen online. GDK) As a young student he won a gold medal from the<\/p>\n

        University of Copenhagen for a historical treatise about the Wends in the<\/p>\n

        middle ages.*<\/p>\n

        (The Wends were a Baltic people of Slavic origin. The island of Ruegen was<\/p>\n

        inhabited by Wends.)<\/p>\n

        * \u201c Mogens’ son Henning describes the award to Frederik as follows:<\/p>\n

        \u201cWe know, that during his law studies before he graduated, he delivered a dissertation about<\/em><\/p>\n

        the history of the German island in the Baltic called Ruegen, (which was under Danish<\/em><\/p>\n

        administration for several centuries in the Middle Ages, and for which he was rewarded with <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
        Page 4<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        the Gold Medal of the University of Copenhagen\u201d. This dissertation, which runs about 200<\/em><\/p>\n

        pages in old, handwritten Gothic script is in the possession of Ida Klee.<\/em><\/p>\n

        Henning also informed me that \u201cFrederik Klee was member of the Danish Parliament from<\/em><\/p>\n

        1856-1864 when he died. He represented the National Liberal Party, which wanted to<\/em><\/p>\n

        dissolve the old Dano-German state consisting of Lauenburg, Holstein , Slesvig and the<\/em><\/p>\n

        Kingdom of Denmark including Iceland, Faroe Islands and Greenland, by separating Slesvig<\/em><\/p>\n

        from Holstein and Lauenburg, which were German speaking provinces.<\/em><\/p>\n

        As you know Denmark lost Slesvig (Alt spelling Schleswig)) and Holstein in a war with<\/em><\/p>\n

        Prussia and Austria in 1864 and in 1920 only the Northern Part of Slesvig was reunited with<\/em><\/p>\n

        Denmark.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

        Frederik Klee’s scholarly works<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Frederik Klee published many scholarly works. Probably the most famous is one about how<\/p>\n

        the earth was formed, which he first published at the age of 34 in Danish. ( Klee, Frederik.<\/p>\n

        Syndfloden. En r\u00e6kke af geologiske Hypotheser fremsatte fra et verdenshistorisk Standpunct) It was<\/p>\n

        later published in German under the title “Der Urzustand der Erde” and in Swedish and<\/p>\n

        French, “Le Deluge”. At the time it was written, geology was in its infancy and science had<\/p>\n

        not yet replaced the Bible as the authoritative source of knowledge of natural events.<\/p>\n

        Scientists and other writers who dared to challenge the creation myth of the Bible were often<\/p>\n

        subject to attack. Largely for that reason Charles Darwin, who was a contemporary of<\/p>\n

        Frederik Klee, waited until 1859 to publish his Origin of Species.<\/p>\n

        “Le Deluge” is full of facts and speculations that seem to be radically inconsistent with the<\/p>\n

        Biblical story of creation. At the time he wrote, it was still believed that God created the<\/p>\n

        world only about 5 or 6 thousand years ago and that all history of humans and other forms of<\/p>\n

        life took place within that narrow time frame. F. Klee repeatedly asserts that the Bible is<\/p>\n

        never wrong as he contradicts it on page after page. I doubt that F. Klee really believed that<\/p>\n

        what he wrote was literally consistent with Holy Scripture. It seems more likely that he said<\/p>\n

        that only to protect himself against attack from religious fundamentalists.<\/p>\n

        In writing about the formation of the earth, Frederik Klee was following in the footsteps of<\/p>\n

        the Dane Nicolaus Steno (Latinized version of the Danish name Niels Stensen), who is called<\/p>\n

        the father of geology for his work in the 17th Century.<\/p>\n

        Below is an English translation of Part I, chapters I, II ,III, IV, VI and XII of Le Deluge, by<\/p>\n

        Frederik A. G. Klee (The translation was done by Allison Butler, using the German<\/strong><\/p>\n

        edition “Der Urzustand der Erde” and the French edition, “Le Deluge”<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
        Page 5<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        Note how the author expresses profound acceptance of the Creation myth, while introducing<\/p>\n

        all kinds of exceptions to it.<\/p>\n

        Le Deluge by Frederik Klee<\/strong><\/p>\n

        Chapter I \u2013 Part I<\/p>\n

        Preliminary Observations<\/p>\n

        There was a time when scientists could legitimately claim to grasp the whole of human<\/p>\n

        knowledge. Today, even the most gifted individual humbly recognizes that a lifetime is<\/p>\n

        hardly enough to fully probe any one of the countless sources of science. Even limiting<\/p>\n

        oneself to the most fundamental truths, it is easy to become lost in the vastness of the facts<\/p>\n

        that nature and history offer up for examination. Besides, who would dare to assume that the<\/p>\n

        field of science, as large as it appears, is not susceptible to further growth? Who would dare<\/p>\n

        to accept the deceiving illusion that we have finally reached the end of the same struggle<\/p>\n

        against superstition, ignorance and doubt that the truth has been battling for centuries? How<\/p>\n

        could someone of limited intelligence believe that sun of progress has completely dispersed<\/p>\n

        the clouds of ignorance that hide the ultimate goals of humankind: truth and freedom, since<\/p>\n

        the light of science still only illuminates a small number of experts of the intellectual world?<\/p>\n

        On the contrary, look at the number of people throughout the many generations that have<\/p>\n

        existed on this earth, who have exercised their intelligence in efforts to understand the rules<\/p>\n

        governing the universe! Should we not deplore the fact that most of them were afraid to<\/p>\n\n\n\n
        Page 6<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        reveal their discoveries to their contemporaries? It is because they feared the masses, who<\/p>\n

        with their prejudices, superstitions, and egoism have always been an obstacle against the<\/p>\n

        improvement of man. Once defeated, the masses treat these truths with indifference \u2013 truths<\/p>\n

        which we now consider to be the most precious jewels of intelligence. Take into<\/p>\n

        consideration the fierce struggle endured by Christianity to establish its doctrines! Eighteen<\/p>\n

        centuries have passed and barely more than a quarter of the earth\u2019s inhabitants have adopted<\/p>\n

        other forms of this religion, which is simple yet so highly regarded.<\/p>\n

        The ideas that we have today concerning the shape of the earth and its climates etc.,<\/p>\n

        are ideas that each one of us has blindly adopted as common banalities that do not need to be<\/p>\n

        further examined. What struggles these ideas have endured against the gross incredulity and<\/p>\n

        obstinate ignorance of the past! How many centuries passed before we decided to renounce<\/p>\n

        the theory that the world is flat! – or for us to recognize that the north is not ruled by an<\/p>\n

        eternal cold, freezing everything in its path, and that a ravaging fire does not exist beyond the<\/p>\n

        equator (which was crossed with much fear by Gomer\u2019s followers), Editor’s note: Gomer was<\/p>\n

        a Biblical character)- or for Columbus to convince his incredulous contemporaries that other<\/p>\n

        lands could be discovered by crossing the Atlantic (an idea which seems so simple to us<\/p>\n

        nowadays)! \u2013 or for us to finally acknowledge that powerful laws govern the universe, which<\/p>\n

        force the earth and the planets to circulate in orbits around the sun! The truth, however, has<\/p>\n

        emerged victorious over these struggles. Even those who disregarded it initially were<\/p>\n

        eventually forced to accept it and submit to its powerful force. Ever since the first<\/p>\n

        intellectual movement was recognized by man, the fact remains that the more our world is<\/p>\n

        illuminated, the more the truth will be universally recognized (this will continue to be so, as<\/p>\n

        long as the world exists).<\/p>\n

        Strengthened by this persuasion, I will attempt to analyze a page from the great book<\/p>\n

        of nature \u2013 a page, which is still quite obscure, yet whose contents are astonishingly rich. I<\/p>\n

        am not motivated by a vain assumption that my opinions are faultless, but by the irresistible<\/p>\n

        desire to present the scholars with a series of hypotheses for examination, (hypotheses which<\/p>\n

        I am profoundly convinced are true). First and foremost, I would like to point out that I wish<\/p>\n

        this work to be judged not only from a geological standpoint, but more so from a historical<\/p>\n

        point of view, since my goal is to shed light on a remarkable period in the history of<\/p>\n

        humankind; and thus I ask for the tolerance of the geologists for any errors I have made, since<\/p>\n

        it is true that no author should publish his work without having sufficiently developed and<\/p>\n

        studied it. On the other hand, an author must not hold back results, which he\/she feels to be<\/p>\n

        sound or which could help to shed new light on the field of science. I cannot ignore the great<\/p>\n

        difference that exists between the conclusions that I have established in this book and the<\/p>\n

        opinions of philosophers and prominent scholars on these matters. I have no doubt that they<\/p>\n

        will be resistant to some of the ideas, however I trust they will be impartial when examining<\/p>\n

        my work. I dare to hope that if I succeed in persuading them of the soundness of my<\/p>\n

        principal idea, they will further develop this theory that I have exposed in bits and pieces. As<\/p>\n

        for the form, I agree that this work leaves something to be desired, however I would like to<\/p>\n

        point out that its main goal, which is an explanation of the deluge and its related phenomena,<\/p>\n

        was not a brief undertaking. Basically, I had an idea for several years, which I developed<\/p>\n

        amidst many doubts and struggles. Swayed by the authority of scholars who seemed to be<\/p>\n

        opposed to this idea, I dismissed it several times, only to turn back to it again with conviction<\/p>\n

        and new interest. What can I say \u2013 I could not convince myself that the account of the flood<\/p>\n

        in Genesis, which contains many fundamental truths, was not based on historical evidence. I<\/p>\n

        therefore turned to the sources of both history and science. The study of historical traditions<\/p>\n

        as well as the examination of the remarkable shapes of the coasts of the five parts of the<\/p>\n\n\n\n
        Page 7<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        world (which show evidence everywhere of the former existence of the seas) reconfirmed the<\/p>\n

        idea that I had developed about the act of creation as it is told in the Bible.<\/p>\n

        Before tackling this subject, and before making it accessible to a larger number of<\/p>\n

        readers (if permitted), I will talk about fossils, interesting remains from many years ago, and<\/p>\n

        will then expose an abridged summary of the history of geology<\/em>. I will go on to present an<\/p>\n

        outline of the various strata <\/em>that make up the earth\u2019s crust based on their relative age, by<\/p>\n

        briefly explaining how the earth successively arrived at its actual state, or, in other terms,<\/p>\n

        how the world <\/em>(a glorious name that we have given to our earth, which is so meager in<\/p>\n

        proportion to the rest of the universe) was created. It is superfluous to say that my intention<\/p>\n

        here is to simply give a course on systematic geology<\/em>.<\/p>\n

        There was a time when unbiased scholars would have smiled at the thought that the<\/p>\n

        earth had been created by the simple word of the All-Powerful; the account of Genesis was<\/p>\n

        viewed as a figurative narrative adapted for the limited intelligence of the people of Israel. It<\/p>\n

        was affirmed with a perseverance that usually characterizes incredulity, that it would have<\/p>\n

        been unworthy of God to use a certain number of days in the creation of the world. A zealous<\/p>\n

        misunderstanding subsequently came about, rejecting the testimonies about the creation of<\/p>\n

        the world that were communicated in the Scriptures. It was forgotten that the establishment<\/p>\n

        of eternal and immutable laws, according to which the earth and the universe as well as<\/p>\n

        creation itself were gradually <\/em>developed, imply the existence of an all-knowing and all-<\/p>\n

        powerful God.<\/p>\n

        Geology confirms the accuracy of the account creation in Genesis, provided that we<\/p>\n

        do not persist in confusing the spirit with the word. Here we are called to use our ability to<\/p>\n

        think and to reflect, which is one of the most precious gifts granted to us by God. By<\/p>\n

        proceeding in this way, each one of us can find a simple and true account of creation in the<\/p>\n

        Scripture, keeping with geological laws and worthy of its divine author. We should be<\/p>\n

        amazed by the fact that it was not until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that several<\/p>\n

        scholars, armed with all of the experience and science of the past, had the idea to observe<\/p>\n

        several of the truths that Moses <\/em>had already taught to his people.<\/p>\n

        Since the time of Aristotle<\/em>, the Ancients recognized four elements: earth, fire, water and air,<\/p>\n

        which were assumed to be the main constituents of nature, and to which all bodies could be<\/p>\n

        reduced by chemical process. The chemists later proved that these elements, themselves<\/p>\n

        make up other elements. Today, we can account for no less than fifty simple bodies, which<\/p>\n

        will perhaps be further broken down as science progresses.<\/p>\n

        Based on the information that science has gathered, there are currently only sixteen elements<\/p>\n

        that make up the composition of the earth\u2019s crust and the fluids that cover and surround it, or<\/p>\n

        that are in continuous circulation. They are oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, sulphur,<\/p>\n

        chlorine, fluorine, phosphorus, silicon, aluminum, potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium,<\/p>\n

        iron, and manganese. The first six of these elements play the most important role.<\/p>\n

        It is very rare, however, to find these elements in their pure form. Generally, they combine<\/p>\n

        with each other in an infinite number of ways and therefore create various compound bodies,<\/p>\n

        which are endowed with particular properties according to the proportions with which they<\/p>\n

        are mixed. Thus the atmosphere <\/em>of our earth is made up of various gasses, (though mainly of<\/p>\n

        oxygen and nitrogen in a proportion of approximately 21 to 79) which are maintained in the<\/p>\n

        form of air by the extensive force of the heat. Water <\/em>is composed of oxygen and hydrogen in<\/p>\n\n\n\n
        Page 8<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        a proportion of 89 to 11. Fire <\/em>is the result of a specific combination of oxygen, sulphur,<\/p>\n

        chlorine, etc., and various combustibles. According to the research of modern chemists, soils<\/p>\n

        are made up of metal oxides (specific combinations of metals with oxygen). A large number<\/p>\n

        of minerals are simply water precipitates, mainly from the sea.<\/p>\n

        The Ancients already acknowledged that water played a significant role in the formation of<\/p>\n

        the earth\u2019s crust. Genesis recounts how the water covered the earth before the first<\/p>\n

        appearance of the animals, the plants, and man; according to Chinese and Egyptian traditions,<\/p>\n

        water is the original element; traditions from India claim that water was the first work of the<\/p>\n

        Creator; even the inhabitants of the New-World (among them Mexicans and Peruvians) call<\/p>\n

        the first Age of the world \u201cthe Age of water\u201d.<\/p>\n

        From a physical point of view, one does not have to be a trained observer to realize that the<\/p>\n

        sea played a major role in the history of the formation of the continents; frequent allusions to<\/p>\n

        the actions of these waters can be found in the writings of authors throughout time. However,<\/p>\n

        credit must be given to the geologists of the last centuries who scientifically established that<\/p>\n

        all of the earth\u2019s soils are marine deposits<\/em>, and consequently, that in former times the<\/p>\n

        majority of our continents were covered by the sea. These geologists are the ones who taught<\/p>\n

        us that wherever we penetrate into the depths of the earth in order to extract metals, we<\/p>\n

        encounter deposits, which are similar to those formed by the sea nowadays. They have also<\/p>\n

        shown us that these deposits are set in layers, one on top of the other with a perfect regularity<\/p>\n

        and order, even in areas where the original layering was altered by catastrophe. Furthermore,<\/p>\n

        we have no reason to doubt that the sea actually covered these areas in former times if we<\/p>\n

        consider the fact that many of these soils contain petrifactions of plants and marine animals,<\/p>\n

        which, according to their quantity and circumstance, is sufficient proof that they lived and<\/p>\n

        perished in the same area.<\/p>\n

        In order to ensure a complete understanding of what is to follow, I feel it is necessary to<\/p>\n

        discuss fossils <\/em>in greater detail, which constitute one of the essential parts of our geological<\/p>\n

        knowledge…<\/p>\n

        Chapter II – Part I<\/p>\n

        Fossils<\/p>\n

        We would have the wrong idea about fossils if we believed them to be simply the<\/p>\n

        remains of organic bodies, that is, of petrified animals or plant life. For the most part, a fossil<\/p>\n

        is a mineral that has filled the space previously occupied by an organic body (plant or<\/em><\/p>\n

        animal), whereby the hard parts have been successively penetrated and replaced by mineral<\/em><\/p>\n

        substances<\/em>. Sometimes, this substitution is carried out with such precision, that these<\/p>\n

        minerals take on the exact same form and structure of the deceased bodies, which give them a<\/p>\n

        striking resemblance to the destroyed organic body. It is this same process that turns wood<\/p>\n

        into crude quartz-agate, and later into opal; the parts of flint stone replace the original plant<\/p>\n

        substance, conserving the structure of the plant. The more delicate and soft the organic parts<\/p>\n

        of a body, the more difficult it is to preserve its structure. This explains why we only<\/p>\n\n\n\n
        Page 9<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        encounter organic bodies in a fossilized state that are more resistant to destruction due to their<\/p>\n

        hardness and their chemical nature.<\/p>\n

        We mainly find the trunks, branches, and roots of plants in the fossilized state.<\/p>\n

        Animal debris usually consists of teeth, bones, scales and other hard parts; but of all the<\/p>\n

        fossils, shells are the most common. They are found in all shapes and dimensions, and<\/p>\n

        sometimes in such large quantities that up to 10,454 were counted in just 45 grams of<\/p>\n

        limestone in the surrounding area of Sienna. The distribution of these fossils is even more<\/p>\n

        remarkable; enormous rocks of coral similar to those found in the south sea and vast shoals of<\/p>\n

        shells exist in the middle of the continents. There is hardly any Neptunian soil that does not<\/p>\n

        contain a large quantity, and they have been detected at all depths in the carboniferous soils<\/p>\n

        of England and Belgium at nearly 330 meters below sea level. They can also be found at the<\/p>\n

        summit of the highest mountains in Europe at 4,330 meters and in Asia at a height of 5,330<\/p>\n

        meters. Their presence is independent of the nature of the soil since they can be found in<\/p>\n

        very hard rock as well as in sand and marl deposits. However, this does not prevent them<\/p>\n

        from varying according to the diverse soils in which they are found. Those found at great<\/p>\n

        depths differ considerably from currently existing plants and animals, whereas those found in<\/p>\n

        the upper layers greatly resemble them. At some point, each of these layers must have been<\/p>\n

        positioned at the surface of the earth. The animals and plants whose remains are found in<\/p>\n

        these soils must have been buried and covered up by subsequent layers as a result of some<\/p>\n

        sort of accident. Finally, just as nowadays animals vary according to the general conditions<\/p>\n

        in which they exist, the same applies to the great diversity that can be found among fossils of<\/p>\n

        different regions. We are mainly able distinguish those from the salt-water deposits and<\/p>\n

        those from the fresh water deposits. In the layers just below the surface, for example in the<\/p>\n

        Basins of both Paris and London, salt-water fossils can be found on top of fresh-water fossils,<\/p>\n

        which proves that these areas were alternatively covered by the sea and then rivers or lakes.<\/p>\n

        Fossilized plants have also attracted the attention of scholars. Among the eminent<\/p>\n

        botanists who have studied plant fossils, I will mention Alexandre de Jussieu, Schlotheim,<\/p>\n

        Count Sternberg and in particular, Mr. Adolphe Brongniart, who discovered that the same<\/p>\n

        progressive development exists in the plant kingdom as in the animal world. All in all, the<\/p>\n

        study of plants was not pursued with the same perseverance as the study of animal fossils.<\/p>\n

        Only 5 \u2013 600 plants fossils have been identified, which is quite small compared to the number<\/p>\n

        of existing plants. Previously existing plants have been associated with three or four main<\/p>\n

        time periods. The plants from the first period <\/em>known as the insular period, such as the<\/p>\n

        cryptogams <\/em>of gigantic proportions (lychopods, ferns), grew in islands that were not highly<\/p>\n

        elevated above sea-level. They are colossal plants whose structure is very simple and not<\/p>\n

        highly varied. All of these species are extinct and do not relate to any of existing plant<\/p>\n

        families. We have identified one type of fern in particular, whose trunk was covered in<\/p>\n

        extremely remarkable scales. In the second period<\/em>: the littoral period, we find a much larger<\/p>\n

        variety of plants. Their structure is more compound and they present certain similarities with<\/p>\n

        existing plants. Some represent species, which currently exist although they are not as<\/p>\n

        widespread as before, such as the \u201ccycade\u201d family, which must have been very abundant in<\/p>\n

        its day.<\/p>\n

        During the third period<\/em>, known as the continental period, plants were more or less<\/p>\n

        similar to currently existing ones. In general, the families and classes are the same, but the<\/p>\n

        species are different. Dicotyledons, which are the highest on the plant scale are very frequent<\/p>\n

        in this third period. Leaves have also been found that resemble in every respect our poplars,<\/p>\n

        willows, and maples.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
        Page 10<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        Everything indicates that the animal kingdom played a highly important role<\/p>\n

        throughout these three periods. This is attested in the immensity of the carboniferous soils:<\/p>\n

        the remains of primitive forests, which provide us today with one of our most basic resources.<\/p>\n

        The study of animal fossils <\/em>began long before that of plants. It is not surprising that at<\/p>\n

        that particular stage in the development of natural sciences, fossilized debris was considered<\/p>\n

        to be a trick of nature, and many of these animals of colossal size and strange shapes, which<\/p>\n

        still continue to amaze us today, prompted the development of fables, including the legend of<\/p>\n

        the defeated rebel angels<\/em>, who were 6 meters tall and whose assumed remains are none other<\/p>\n

        than those of the mammoth or antediluvian elephant. Other fables include the story of<\/p>\n

        Teutoboch<\/em>, the 10-meter giant who was the king of the first Germans. His remains were<\/p>\n

        found in Dauphine and were later recognized to be the remains of a mastodon. There are also<\/p>\n

        the giants <\/em>of Sicily, whose remains are actually those of hippopotami and the story of the<\/p>\n

        Primitive Man<\/em>, described by Scheuchzer in 1726, who believed that the soft parts and the<\/p>\n

        skin of this man had been changed into stone. It was later discovered that these remains were<\/p>\n

        those of an extinct species of salamander. There is also the fable of the giant vulture<\/em>, a<\/p>\n

        winged monster shaped more like a basilisk than a dragon, which was said to devour entire<\/p>\n

        families. Today we recognize that the remains or this giant vulture are the bones of the<\/p>\n

        northern rhinoceros. Finally there is the fable of the petrified Cavalier <\/em>from the forest of<\/p>\n

        Fontainbleau, who was displayed to the curious public by avid speculators, but who was later<\/p>\n

        declared by the Academy of Paris to be nothing more than a concretion of sandstone. A<\/p>\n

        chisel is most likely to have helped end all speculation.<\/p>\n

        One circumstance that contributed to the propagation of the idea that these fossilized<\/p>\n

        remains were those of fantastic creatures was the opinion put forward by the ancient<\/p>\n

        naturalists, that no compound body species could become extinct on earth. By establishing<\/p>\n

        that these unknown petrified remains must have in fact belonged to extinct species of<\/p>\n

        animals, Lister (English) and Blumenbach (German) were the first to pave the way for more<\/p>\n

        sound ideas. However, it was Cuvier who would allow us to catch a glimpse of the immense<\/p>\n

        significance and scope of the study of fossils by establishing the great principle of the<\/p>\n

        correlation of forms in compound beings: a principle by which at least each being, if need be,<\/p>\n

        can be recognized by a single fragment of one of its parts. It is true, as Cuvier also remarks,<\/p>\n

        that determining the species to which a particular quadruped fossil belongs is very difficult,<\/p>\n

        considering the fact that it is very rare to find the complete skeleton, and even more so the<\/p>\n

        skin or hairs, etc. However, science has succeeded in defeating these difficulties, thanks to<\/p>\n

        the ingenious system of the illustrious naturalist, by which a single tooth or bone suffices to<\/p>\n

        determine the species to which it belongs. Thus, the mandible or jawbone of a carnivorous<\/p>\n

        animal makes it possible to determine the actual shape and size of the whole head. In order<\/p>\n

        for the animal to be able to carry its prey, for example, it must have certain muscles that<\/p>\n

        determine a particular shape of the neck and vertebrae. Its nails must be mobile for it to seize<\/p>\n

        its prey, and this determines the shape of the foot, etc. Cuvier was able to describe and<\/p>\n

        classify close to 100 species of animal fossils based on this method. Out of this number,<\/p>\n

        there were 70 species that were unknown to the ancient naturalists. The forms of these<\/p>\n

        monstrous species differed greatly from currently existing animals and astonished the world.<\/p>\n

        Paleontology began to progress rapidly down this path. A great deal of research on<\/p>\n

        fossils was carried out by eminent naturalists such as Alexander Brongniart, Lamarck,<\/p>\n

        Deshayes, d\u2019Orbigny in France, Goldfuss, Count Munster, H.G. Bronn, Hoffmann, C.H. v.<\/p>\n

        Zieten in Germany, J. Sowerby, W. Buckland, Phillips in England, and Agassiz in<\/p>\n

        Switzerland, some of whose findings we will discuss later on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
        Page 11<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        Among the non-vertebrate animals<\/em>, the animal-plants <\/em>or petrified zoophytes <\/em>are found<\/p>\n

        in very large quantities, which is very easy to understand. The majority of animals of this<\/p>\n

        species, in particular the polyps, grow on rocks and since they are unable to move, they have<\/p>\n

        a much greater chance of survival. One of the most interesting discoveries of our time made<\/p>\n

        near Carlsbad by the naturalist, C. Fischer of Pirkenhammer and later completed by Professor<\/p>\n

        Ehrenberg in Berlin is the existence of fossilized infusoria. It has been calculated and<\/p>\n

        claimed that 41 million of these animals exist within 27mm<\/p>\n

        2<\/p>\n

        of slate in the regions of Bilin,<\/p>\n

        Bohemia and Cassel.<\/p>\n

        Mollusks <\/em>play an equally important role. Deposits formed almost exclusively by<\/p>\n

        shells can be found in all formations of the earth\u2019s crust. Those with considerable dimensions<\/p>\n

        show evidence of orthoceratites, which measure up to 2 meters in length. The debris of<\/p>\n

        crustaceans (of trilobites) has also been found in the oldest strata. On the other hand, worms<\/em><\/p>\n

        are not very evident, and insects <\/em>are even less frequent. Spider fossils, which have been<\/p>\n

        found in the carboniferous soils of England, are among the latter. We also know that insects<\/p>\n

        are found in amber, which is a resinous vegetable substance. It is a type of hardened gum<\/p>\n

        originating from pine trees belonging to the antediluvian flora.<\/p>\n

        Among the vertebrate animals<\/em>, fish <\/em>and reptiles <\/em>are the most important for geology,<\/p>\n

        not only because of their number, but because fish, whose natural habitat is water,<\/p>\n

        characterize almost all of the Neptunian layers and therefore provide us with information<\/p>\n

        about the fauna of the seas during different periods as well as the natural revolutions that they<\/p>\n

        endured. It is for this reason that several geologists devoted themselves entirely to the study<\/p>\n

        of fish fossils. They have identified more than 1700 species distributed in almost all of the<\/p>\n

        Neptunian formations. Mount Bolca near Verona provides a remarkable example of the<\/p>\n

        number of fish fossils that can found in a limited area. Mr. Agassiz identified 127 species,<\/p>\n

        not one of which resembles any currently existing one.<\/p>\n

        The reptiles of the antediluvian world differ greatly from those of today. The<\/p>\n

        saurians, among others, were animals of gigantic dimensions and fantastic shapes, which are<\/p>\n

        reminiscent of the chimeric monsters of the fable. Such large quantities of these reptiles have<\/p>\n

        been found in certain strata, that it is believed that they ruled the animal kingdom for several<\/p>\n

        epochs along the gulfs and in the swamps.<\/p>\n

        One British woman, Miss Anning, introduced us to one of the most remarkable<\/p>\n

        amphibians, the ichthyosaurus, which has the mandible of a dolphin, the teeth of a crocodile,<\/p>\n

        and the sternum and head of a lizard. This animal must have lived in very large groups since<\/p>\n

        fossilized excrement of this reptile can be found covering more than half of a rock formation<\/p>\n

        in Gloucestershire, which is several inches thick and extends over a mile in length. It is<\/p>\n

        assumed that the ichthyosaurus was an excellent swimmer, but was not very mobile on land.<\/p>\n

        Its mandible was long and pointed and its face was almond-shaped. It had an extremely large<\/p>\n

        head and a very short neck. A number of the mandibles found measure up to 2 meters in<\/p>\n

        length with some of these animals measuring up to at least 5 meters in length.<\/p>\n

        Another animal of the same family, which has a less fantastic appearance but which is<\/p>\n

        even more extraordinary, is the plesiosaurus, identified by Mr. Conybeare. This animal has a<\/p>\n

        small head and an extremely long neck. Some measure up to almost 9 meters in length.<\/p>\n

        The naturalists have found 15 other animal species of the same family, including the<\/p>\n

        mosasaurus<\/em>, an intermediary species between the crocodile and the lizard measuring 8 meters<\/p>\n\n\n\n
        Page 12<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        in length; the megalosaurus<\/em>, identified by Buckland, which is a reptile measuring over 13<\/p>\n

        meters in length; the iguanodon<\/em>, which resembles the Mexican iguana, but which measures<\/p>\n

        23 meters in length; and finally the pterodactyl<\/em>, discovered near Eichstaedt, of which 8<\/p>\n

        species were identified measuring between 50 and 130 cm in length. This animal prompted<\/p>\n

        various debates, however the general agreement is that it is considered to be a flying reptile<\/em>.<\/p>\n

        Only a very small number of fossilized toads have been discovered. Bird fossils <\/em>are<\/p>\n

        even more rare, which is easy to understand if we assume that their ability to fly allowed<\/p>\n

        them to escape somewhat from the catastrophes that led to the death of the land animals.<\/p>\n

        However, footprints of birds have been found in certain layers of sandstone. Petrified eggs<\/p>\n

        and feather imprints in limestone also exist, however we have not yet discovered fossilized<\/p>\n

        beaks, heads or talons, which are the essential parts needed for the rigorous identification of<\/p>\n

        species.<\/p>\n

        The mammals <\/em>of the antediluvian world, which during the more recent epochs present<\/p>\n

        as animals of a much more complex structure, appear to have reached their greatest<\/p>\n

        development during the period immediately preceding the deluge. Their fossilized remains<\/p>\n

        are found in both recent and alluvial soil. The fact that these animals existed on the eve of<\/p>\n

        the deluge gives us reason to believe that they were wiped out by this catastrophe. I will<\/p>\n

        touch on this topic later on when I further discuss the deluge. For the time being, I will limit<\/p>\n

        myself to mentioning some of the remarkable species of mammals that were already extinct<\/p>\n

        before the deluge, such as the paleother <\/em>(?), of which there must have been 10-12 species; the<\/p>\n

        largest were the size of a rhinoceros and the others ranged from the size of a horse to the size<\/p>\n

        of a pig. There is also the anoplother<\/em>, of which 5 known species exist, as well as the<\/p>\n

        cheropotamus<\/em>, and the adapis<\/em>, etc. These animals are all pachyderms, which have been<\/p>\n

        mainly found in the Paris Basin.<\/p>\n

        ——————————————————————————————–<\/p>\n

        Chapter III \u2013 Part 1<\/p>\n

        A Summary of the History of Geology<\/p>\n

        The Jews and the Egyptians are the only ancient peoples to have demonstrated any<\/p>\n

        understanding of geology. If we compare Moses\u2019 simple yet noble account of the creation of<\/p>\n

        the world with the vague and complicated description written by the Greek philosophers, we<\/p>\n

        are forced to agree that the cosmogony of the Jewish legislature is greatly superior. And yet,<\/p>\n

        Moses was raised by Egyptian priests and lived approximately 16 centuries before Jesus<\/p>\n

        Christ. The doctrines of the philosophers, who for the most part derived from the same<\/p>\n

        school and who lived much later on, refer to little more than isolated facts. Thal\u00e8s de Milet<\/p>\n

        (7<\/p>\n

        th<\/p>\n

        century B.C.) taught that the earth was formed by water. X\u00e9nophane de Colophon (6<\/p>\n

        th<\/p>\n

        century B.C.) believed that initially, the continent was covered by water, and Herodotus (5<\/p>\n

        th<\/p>\n

        century B.C.) held the same opinion with regards to Egypt: that it was created by the Nile.<\/p>\n

        However none of them provide a complete account of the creation of the world. Remarkably,<\/p>\n

        some assume that the origins of the earth are Neptunian, whereas others who use the presence<\/p>\n

        of the volcanoes in Italy and Greece as a guide believe the earth to be the result of volcanic<\/p>\n\n\n\n
        Page 13<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        phenomena. Zenon and Heraclitus (5<\/p>\n

        th<\/p>\n

        century B.C.) assume that fire caused the formation of<\/p>\n

        the earth, and Empedocles of Agrigento (middle of the 5<\/p>\n

        th<\/p>\n

        century) thought that mountains<\/p>\n

        were a result of internal fire. Born in 430, Plato recounts that the island of Atlantis, which<\/p>\n

        was situated near the Strait of Gibraltar and which was larger than Libya and Asia combined<\/p>\n

        was destroyed by a flood and earthquake. Aristotle, who was born in 384 B.C., and who was<\/p>\n

        the founder of natural sciences of his time, considers the earth as a sort of living being, to<\/p>\n

        which he attributes a period of youth, adolescence and old age. Finally, Strabon, who was<\/p>\n

        born in 60 B.C., taught that the internal fire, which was incessantly active deep within the<\/p>\n

        earth, had uplifted on numerous occasions and had caused not only islands, but also entire<\/p>\n

        parts of the globe to disappear below the sea.<\/p>\n

        The cultivation of science came to a halt during the centuries to follow. Finally,<\/p>\n

        Omar el Alem, an Arab scholar who lived during the 10<\/p>\n

        th<\/p>\n

        century after Christ, wrote a<\/p>\n

        dissertation on the backward motion of the sea. However, along with the decadence of the<\/p>\n

        power of the Arabs came the flourish of the arts and sciences. Five hundred years passed<\/p>\n

        during which so much care was given to material interests that man was left with little time to<\/p>\n

        study the earth. Italy, which was rich in fossils and so favorable for the research of scholars,<\/p>\n

        was destined to become once again the forum of the scientific renaissance. It was there at the<\/p>\n

        beginning of the 16<\/p>\n

        th<\/p>\n

        century, that the famous scholar Fracastor opposed the opinion that<\/p>\n

        fossils found in various soils were carried and deposited by the sea. From that point on,<\/p>\n

        interest in geology spread throughout France and Germany. The Dane, Niels Steensen, more<\/p>\n

        generally known under the name of Nicolas Stenon, based his famous theory<\/p>\n

        [1]<\/p>\n

        , which was<\/p>\n

        introduced to Europe by Mr. Elie de Beaumont, upon the phenomena of nature in Italy. This<\/p>\n

        work undeniably places our compatriot in first place among geologists prior to Werner, who<\/p>\n

        he may have surpassed had he been his contemporary or successor, based on the soundness of<\/p>\n

        his ideas. Nicolas Stenon claimed that the earth\u2019s crust was made up of stacked, parallel<\/p>\n

        layers that were formed by the sea, lakes, or rivers etc., and that upheavals of these layers<\/p>\n

        were the result of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, forming the mountains and valleys. He<\/p>\n

        was also the first to prove the existence of land prior to the appearance of organic beings.<\/p>\n

        However, his less enlightened contemporaries soon forgot his profound and very sound<\/p>\n

        ideas. Had they been further developed, these ideas would have advanced the science of<\/p>\n

        geology greatly beyond its current stage. The prejudices of the period were an enormous<\/p>\n

        threat to the progress of this science and absurd hypotheses were developed on the pretext of<\/p>\n

        placing the Bible in harmony with geological phenomena.<\/p>\n

        In their explanation of the deluge, scholars of the highest merit proved themselves to<\/p>\n

        be prolific in developing inconceivable hypotheses. Thomas Burnet, an English scholar<\/p>\n

        [2]<\/p>\n

        ,<\/p>\n

        assumed for example, that the earth\u2019s surface initially consisted of a smooth, level, and light<\/p>\n

        crust, which covered the chasms of the seas. He believed that this crust eventually burst and<\/p>\n

        caused the deluge. Subsequently, the debris from this primal crust fused together to create<\/p>\n

        the surface of the earth as it is at present. Burnet\u2019s compatriot, John Woodward<\/p>\n

        [3]<\/p>\n

        , who was a<\/p>\n

        learned professor at Cambridge, shared and further developed his opinion along with a slew<\/p>\n

        of new absurdities. William Whiston, a skilful astronomer, believed that the deluge was<\/p>\n

        caused by the encounter of the earth with the tail of a comet that he had observed in 1680<\/p>\n

        [4]<\/p>\n

        .<\/p>\n

        The famed philosophers Descartes<\/p>\n

        [5]<\/p>\n

        and Leibnitz<\/p>\n

        [6]<\/p>\n

        held the opinion that the earth was the<\/p>\n

        remains of a burnt out sun. According to the former, the various elements were arranged in<\/p>\n

        such a way that fire occupied the center of the globe and water covered the surface. He<\/p>\n

        attributed the volcanic activity and the formation of metals, etc., to the central internal fire.<\/p>\n

        Leibnitz, on the other hand, believed that after the earth had cooled, it was transformed into a<\/p>\n

        mass of granite, covered in glass and gravel and full of crevasses. He claimed that as the<\/p>\n\n\n\n
        Page 14<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        atmosphere cooled, it was transformed into water and flooded the earth as it violently<\/p>\n

        precipitated to the ground. As the surface of the earth was fissured in several areas, it<\/p>\n

        provided an outlet for the water, and thus the continents and islands appeared as a<\/p>\n

        consequence of these upheavals. Jacques Scheuchzer of Zurich claimed that the waters that<\/p>\n

        caused the deluge had sprung up from reservoirs originating from the interior of the earth.<\/p>\n

        He believed that the mountains were formed by the rocky substances of the earth, which were<\/p>\n

        primarily dispersed as a result of the deluge but were then gathered and assembled by the<\/p>\n

        direct intervention of a divine power, whose intention it was to place the mountains in areas<\/p>\n

        where rocks were the most abundant<\/p>\n

        [7]<\/p>\n

        . The theories of scholars, which were to follow,<\/p>\n

        proved to be more in accordance with the laws of nature. Pluche<\/p>\n

        [8]<\/p>\n

        , an abbot, claimed that the<\/p>\n

        deluge was caused by a displacement of the earth\u2019s axis accompanied by a subsidence of the<\/p>\n

        earth\u2019s surface. Engel[9]<\/p>\n

        , a bailiff, thought that this catastrophe was caused by a shift of<\/p>\n

        gravity. Le Cat<\/p>\n

        [10]<\/p>\n

        was of the opinion that the continents were formed by the movement of<\/p>\n

        the sea, which while creating its banks piled up deposits and alluvium, whereas Maillet<\/p>\n

        [11]<\/p>\n

        believed that the continents were formed by the backward motion of the sea. Lazaro<\/p>\n

        Moro<\/p>\n

        [12]<\/p>\n

        , who was regarded for a long time as one of the leading representatives of<\/p>\n

        volcanism, was opposed to these opinions. In general, however, his ideas were far less<\/p>\n

        profound than those expounded by Stenon a century earlier. Like Stenon, he suggested that<\/p>\n

        the continents had been raised above sea level by the internal fire and that the fossils that<\/p>\n

        were discovered were remains of animals that had lived there.<\/p>\n

        Buffon<\/p>\n

        [13]<\/p>\n

        expounded his system in 1743, however, although his ingenious hypotheses<\/p>\n

        and his elegant style attracted the interest and approval of the public, his opinions were<\/p>\n

        considered by the Sorbonne to be heretical. He believed that a comet had grazed the equator<\/p>\n

        of the sun in an oblique direction and had thus caused the separation of the planets. The<\/p>\n

        planets, which were igneous fluid masses (like the sun), were gradually cooled by the poles<\/p>\n

        and continued to cool as they moved towards the equator. According to his calculations, it<\/p>\n

        must have taken the earth 74,800 years to attain its current temperature, and it would take<\/p>\n

        another 93,000 to lower its average temperature to zero. All creatures would be therefore<\/p>\n

        destined to perish as the heat dissipated. He claimed that the continents were formed by<\/p>\n

        water from the atmosphere, which precipitated so violently that the continents were left dry<\/p>\n

        as the water rushed to fill the fissures caused by the consolidation of the igneous mass.<\/p>\n

        Furthermore, he divided the history of the development of the earth into 6 periods, which he<\/p>\n

        called \u201cthe epochs of nature<\/em>\u201d. As ingenious as it was, this system was found to be at odds<\/p>\n

        with practical knowledge on several points and subsequently had to be abandoned. Pallas\u2019<\/p>\n

        ideas are in many respects more in accordance with the laws of nature even though they are<\/p>\n

        by no means faultless<\/p>\n

        [14]<\/p>\n

        . He claimed, for example, that the numerous fossils that have been<\/p>\n

        found in Siberia were carried and deposited there by a deluge. This deluge was the result of a<\/p>\n

        volcanic eruption, which caused the Indian Ocean to flood the continent of Asia. As a result<\/p>\n

        of this catastrophe, plants and animals of southern Asian were carried towards northern<\/p>\n

        regions and subsequently froze in the ice.<\/p>\n

        The DeLuc brothers (in particular Jean Andr\u00e9<\/p>\n

        [15]<\/p>\n

        ), who were contemporaries of Pallas,<\/p>\n

        made genuine progress in the field of natural sciences, particularly in meteorology. Although<\/p>\n

        Jean Andr\u00e9 was able to use evidence to demonstrate the fallacy of earlier systems, he failed in<\/p>\n

        his attempt to explain the creation of the world and the deluge in complete accordance with<\/p>\n

        the book of Genesis. Satisfactory geological results were obtained only after an extensive<\/p>\n

        study of a series of successive soils and the fossils that they contained (an essential<\/p>\n

        requirement for every good theory of creation). Fortunately, the geologists eventually<\/p>\n

        decided to abandon their hypotheses and focus on the more practical side of their science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
        Page 15<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        These geologists include among others the Germans J.G. Lehmann, and C. Fuschel, the<\/p>\n

        English Mitchel and Withurst, and the famous French geologist, Saussure who, independent<\/p>\n

        of all schools, expounded various new ideas and results based on thorough research that he<\/p>\n

        conducted during his numerous travels in the Alps<\/p>\n

        [16]<\/p>\n

        . In general, however, Saussure\u2019s<\/p>\n

        published results tended to be limited. On the other hand, the German geologist, A.G.<\/p>\n

        Werner, developed a general theory based on his own local experiments and subsequently<\/p>\n

        became not only the creator of a mineralogy system, but also founded the modern Neptunist<\/p>\n

        school. Since his ideas were considered for a long period to be indisputable and were highly<\/p>\n

        influential in the development of geology, I presume that a summary of his system might be<\/p>\n

        of some interest.<\/p>\n

        Werner was the first to demonstrate that the various layers of the earth\u2019s crust are<\/p>\n

        composed of the same elements, which however are more or less modified. He went on to<\/p>\n

        divide the soils into a certain number of formations, and although his system was not<\/p>\n

        completely acceptable, one cannot deny the soundness of his basic idea. Since his<\/p>\n

        observations were limited to the study of the Ertz mountains and their surroundings, where<\/p>\n

        the traces of a long and regular formation are evident, he concluded that the system was<\/p>\n

        purely Neptunian. He believed that the earth was composed of aqueous deposits in which<\/p>\n

        rock and soil masses initially dissolved and then covered the surface of the earth on repeated<\/p>\n

        occasions. He was not, however, able to explain the cause of this occurrence. According to<\/p>\n

        his theory, the lower layers must have inevitably been older than those covering them, as<\/p>\n

        these deposits could only have been formed successively. Thus, Werner was able to classify<\/p>\n

        the oldest formations. He labeled the first layers the primitive soils<\/em>, which were composed of<\/p>\n

        granite, mica schist, and gneiss etc., crystalline by nature, and devoid of any fossils. The next<\/p>\n

        layer, which he named the transitional soils<\/em><\/p>\n

        [17]<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

        , covered the primitive soils and included hard<\/p>\n

        limestone and clayey schist etc. They were the first partly crystalline soils to show evidence<\/p>\n

        of animal or plant debris. Covering the transitional soils were the stratified soils <\/em>(secondary<\/em><\/p>\n

        soils<\/em>, or \u201cseam\u201d soils), which appeared to be more recent and were composed of various<\/p>\n

        types of sandstone, coal, clay, and gypsum. These soils contained an abundance of fossils,<\/p>\n

        primarily of marine animals. The most recent formations were the alluvium soils. These<\/p>\n

        soils were composed of clayey and carboniferous layers and contained the remains of cattle,<\/p>\n

        deer, rhinoceros, and elephants, etc. Werner attributed the displacement of these layers to<\/p>\n

        purely local circumstances, such as the collapse of caves. He believed that volcanoes were<\/p>\n

        nothing more than huge fires on the earth, caused by local circumstance.<\/p>\n

        With this theory, Werner laid the first foundation stone in the chronicling of a natural history<\/p>\n

        of the earth<\/p>\n

        [18], dating back thousands of years far beyond man\u2019s recollection. This very<\/p>\n

        daring idea is generally accepted nowadays and is most likely to continue to be supported as<\/p>\n

        an irrefutable and unshakeable truth. It is easy to understand that the determination of a<\/p>\n

        system based on the latest geological research, which carried with it such a high degree of<\/p>\n

        truth sparked great interest in the enlightened world. Distinguished German, French, and<\/p>\n

        British scholars enthusiastically engaged themselves in this study, which promised to yield<\/p>\n

        interesting and valuable results. We have already mentioned several of these scholars in our<\/p>\n

        discussion on fossils, however I would like to name the Germans, J.C.W. Voigt, J.C.<\/p>\n

        Freisleben, F.A. Reusz, Leopold von Buch, Alexandre von Humboldt, and finally Goethe; the<\/p>\n

        French, Brochant de Villiers, d\u2019Aubuisson, de Voisin, etc; the British, Robert Jameson,<\/p>\n

        founder of the Wernerian Society, W. Smith, Greenough, J. Webster, Conybeare, McColloch,<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Buckland, Sedwick, Lyell, Sowerby, etc., as well as Henri Steffens, who was born in<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Norway, but received his education and family upbringing in Denmark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
          Page 16<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

          Several of these scholars embraced Werner\u2019s ideas and regarded the earth\u2019s crust as having<\/p>\n

          been formed exclusively by the sea; they are the followers of the modern Neptunian School.<\/p>\n

          Geology continued to progress, however, and it was discovered that several of the geological<\/p>\n

          phenomena within Werner\u2019s theory were not only inexplicable, but were also in fact<\/p>\n

          contradictory. Werner reassigned the basalt to the secondary soil layer, however it was also<\/p>\n

          found in the composition of the primitive soils. Furthermore, granite, which should have<\/p>\n

          belonged to the primitive soils and consequently, should have been found under the other<\/p>\n

          soils, was discovered above them in the Scandinavian mountains as well as in the Alps and<\/p>\n

          even in the Ertz mountains, where Werner had derived the principles of his system. As a<\/p>\n

          result, a flurry of new opinions emerged regarding the age of the Alps. The confidence in the<\/p>\n

          infallibility of Werner\u2019s theory was so great however, that the conflicting opinion of his<\/p>\n

          student Voigt, an excellent mineralogist, who believed that the formation of the earth\u2019s crust<\/p>\n

          was largely a result of the internal fire, did not prevail. It was James Hutton<\/p>\n

          [19]<\/p>\n

          , a Scot, who<\/p>\n

          received the recognition for founding the volcanic school<\/em>. He claimed that the mountains had<\/p>\n

          been raised above sea level and that originally horizontal terrains had been displaced and<\/p>\n

          broken up by volcanoes. He tried to show that the continents, which were formed in this<\/p>\n

          way, were later disrupted by volcanic tremors and flooding. New continents were then<\/p>\n

          formed from the debris. He believed that this occurred at least twice. Hutton\u2019s ideas were<\/p>\n

          defended ardently by John Playfair, who added informative explanations<\/p>\n

          [20]<\/p>\n

          to his work, and<\/p>\n

          by James Hall<\/p>\n

          [21]<\/p>\n

          , who conducted several interesting experiments, which confirm Hutton\u2019s<\/p>\n

          theory. Other British, French, and German scholars adherent to the same theory claimed that<\/p>\n

          several soils, primarily the primitive and non-fossilized soils were not deposits from the<\/p>\n

          depths of the seas, but were substances melted by the internal fire that had been brought to<\/p>\n

          the earth\u2019s surface in a liquid state. This liquid then froze after being covered by soils, which<\/p>\n

          were considered by the Werner school to be more recent. As always, the defendants of this<\/p>\n

          new theory, who attributed the fire as being the principal factor in the formation of the earth\u2019s<\/p>\n

          crust, began to exaggerate. Many of their arguments were refuted and a fierce conflict<\/p>\n

          erupted between those, adherent to the theories of the Neptunist school and those of the<\/p>\n

          volcanic school. Leopold de Buch and Alexander von Humboldt, who were both supporters<\/p>\n

          of Werner, emerged victorious from this struggle with their consent to modify his ideas.<\/p>\n

          Leopold de Buch developed the ingenious theory of upheavals according to which, the<\/p>\n

          majority of terrains that make up the earth\u2019s crust were originally sediment deposited by the<\/p>\n

          sea. Later on they were uplifted by the force of the central fire and caused eruptions at sea<\/p>\n

          level with the anterior Plutonian formations. This theory also helps to explain why the lower<\/p>\n

          rock layers, including those classified by Werner as primitive soils, are often found above<\/p>\n

          more recent soil layers. It is a consequence of the interior pressure, which by acting against<\/p>\n

          the earth\u2019s crust submitted it to intense tension. Thus, the top layers must have broken up and<\/p>\n

          the lower layers pushed to the surface. Buch\u2019s early writings demonstrate that his first ideas<\/p>\n

          were primarily Neptunian. His subsequent in depth studies of the Alps and of the volcanoes<\/p>\n

          of Italy and the South of France reaffirmed these ideas and he could not be swayed. In 1806<\/p>\n

          through 1808<\/p>\n

          [22]<\/p>\n

          however, an expedition would convince him otherwise. He traveled through<\/p>\n

          Scandinavia from Christiania across Norway to the North Pole, continuing across Lapland via<\/p>\n

          Tornea all the way to Stockholm and then back to Christiania. In the surrounding areas of<\/p>\n

          this latter town, he was surprised to discover granite, which until that point had been<\/p>\n

          classified as belonging to the primitive soils. According to Werner\u2019s theory, this granite<\/p>\n

          should have belonged to the lower soil layers and should have been covered mainly with a<\/p>\n

          particular limestone containing numerous fossils. Thus, de Buch became the first to show<\/p>\n

          that Sweden is subject to continual upheaval. After having explored the Canary Islands in<\/p>\n

          1815 accompanied by the Norwegian botanist, Christian Smith, he concluded that these<\/p>\n\n\n\n
          Page 17<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

          islands were of volcanic origin. Based on his research, he put forward the idea that the<\/p>\n

          islands in the Pacific had been formed by volcanic activity. He pointed out that all of the<\/p>\n

          volcanoes covering the earth could be classified into groups, which proves, according to him,<\/p>\n

          that the internal fire emerged through large crevasses. He concluded that not only entire<\/p>\n

          continents, but also mountains had been created and raised by the internal fire. By displacing<\/p>\n

          the primitive horizontal layers so as to create hills and valleys, these upheavals created the<\/p>\n

          distinguishing features of the various countries. Later on, he demonstrated that the enormous<\/p>\n

          mountain range of the Alps was created by the emission of black porphyry from the earth\u2019s<\/p>\n

          core, or rather and perhaps what is more accurate, that the appearance of black porphyry<\/p>\n

          correlated with the creation of those mountains.<\/p>\n

          Although Alexandre von Humboldt introduced the world to many interesting phenomena<\/p>\n

          regarding the emergence of mountains as well as geology in general, the credit for developing<\/p>\n

          the scientific theory of upheavals still belongs to the very talented Frenchman, Mr. Elie de<\/p>\n

          Beaumont. He showed that Leopold de Buch\u2019s evidence relating to the mountains in<\/p>\n

          Germany could be applied to all mountain systems in all countries, primarily to those in<\/p>\n

          Europe, the relative age of which he was able to determine by researching the phenomena<\/p>\n

          that occurred during their upheaval. He showed that the deposits from Neptunian formations,<\/p>\n

          which consisted of secondary or transitional soils, must have been created over long, uniform,<\/p>\n

          and calm periods of time, and that from time to time great cataclysms occurred and<\/p>\n

          interrupted the consistency of these deposits. Thanks to their varying composition, these<\/p>\n

          formations are easily distinguishable, (i.e. slate, sandstone), and depending on the various<\/p>\n

          formations, the remains of organic bodies demonstrate very particular characteristics.<\/p>\n

          According to Mr. de Beaumont, these phenomena, much like the displacement of the layers,<\/p>\n

          can be attributed to catastrophes that occurred as a result of the upheaval of the mountains.<\/p>\n

          Based on his examination of these facts, he concluded that the upheavals must have taken<\/p>\n

          place during four separate periods of time; however after further studies he increased the<\/p>\n

          number of time periods to twelve and then subsequently to fifteen. It is therefore easy for us<\/p>\n

          to conceive how important the determination of the relative age of these mountains must be<\/p>\n

          in terms of the history of the earth\u2019s developmen<\/p>\n

          [1] De solido intra solidum naturaliter contento<\/p>\n

          [2] Telluris theoria sacra. Londini 1681.<\/p>\n

          [3] An Essay towards the natural history of the earth. London, 1685.<\/p>\n

          [4] A new theory of the earth. London, 1708.<\/p>\n

          [5] Principia philosophiae (opera omina). 1692.<\/p>\n

          [6] Protogaea i Acta Lipsiens. 1693. Goettingen, 1749.<\/p>\n

          [7] Histoire de l\u2019Acadmie des sciences de Paris, an 1708.<\/p>\n

          [8] Spectacle de la nature. La Haye et Paris. 1739-41.<\/p>\n

          [9] Wann und wie ist Amerika bevoelkert worden? Essai sur cette question, etc., par E.B. d\u2019E.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
          Page 18<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

          [10] Magasin francais, 1750.<\/p>\n

          [11] Telliamed. Amsterdam, 1748 (1755)<\/p>\n

          [12] De\u2019 Crostacei e degli altri corpi marini ebi, 1740. Also in German entitled \u201cNeue<\/p>\n

          Untersuchungen\u201d, 1751.<\/p>\n

          [13] Histoire naturelle, cont. les \u00e9poques de la nature, supplem. 1778.<\/p>\n

          [14] Observations sur la formation des montagnes, 1777.<\/p>\n

          [15] Lettres physiques et morales sur les montagnes et sur l\u2019histoire de la terre et de l\u2019homme.<\/p>\n

          1776.<\/p>\n

          [16] Voyages dans les Alps, 1779.<\/p>\n

          [17] In Werner\u2019s \u201ckurze klassifikation und beschreibungen der gebirgsarten<\/em>\u201d, Dresden, 1787,<\/p>\n

          the transitional soils are not considered as a separate class.<\/p>\n

          [18] Ueber die ausserlichen Kennzeichen der Fossilien. 1774<\/p>\n

          [19] Theory of the earth, 1795.<\/p>\n

          [20] Explications, 1802.<\/p>\n

          [21] Transactions of the R. Soc. of Edinburgh, vol. 2.<\/p>\n

          [22] Reise durch Norwegen und Lappland. Berlin, 1810.<\/p>\n

          ——————————————————————————————<\/p>\n

          Chapter IV \u2013 part I<\/p>\n

          Mr. Elie de Beaumont\u2019s system of mountain upheaval<\/p>\n

          Since the hypotheses that I will discuss later on regarding the deluge and related phenomena<\/p>\n

          are based primarily on de Beaumont\u2019s system, I feel that it is necessary to provide a<\/p>\n

          chronological summary of the upheaval of the various mountain systems in Europe; these<\/p>\n

          periods of elevation are not to be confused however with the those that chronicle the actual<\/p>\n

          formation of the mountains. The following is a summary written by F. Hoffman<\/p>\n

          [1]<\/p>\n

          .<\/p>\n\n\n\n
          Page 19<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
            \n
          1. The Westmoreland <\/em>and Hundsruck<\/em>, with their neighboring Eifel <\/em>and Taunus <\/em>mountains,<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            which comprise the oldest mountain system. All of the mountain ranges belonging to this<\/p>\n

            system run almost exactly from NE \u00bc E to SW \u00bc W. The mountains of south Scotland and<\/p>\n

            the Isle of Man are undoubtedly the same age.<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. The Vosges <\/em>mountains and the Bocage hills <\/em>(in the calvados region), which run from E<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              15<\/p>\n

              o<\/p>\n

              S \u2013W 15<\/p>\n

              o<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. De Beaumont believes that this system contains part of the old Hartz<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                formation.<\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. The direction of the mountain system of northern England<\/em>, which runs almost<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  exactly from S-N with several deviations on both ends stretching from N NW – S SE.<\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. The mountain system of the Netherlands <\/em>and southern Wales<\/em>, which in the<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Netherlands stretches initially from N – SW up until the left bank of the Meuse river, but then<\/p>\n

                    suddenly changes direction from E-W continuing along the same line into Pembrokeshire.<\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. The system of the Rhine<\/em>, which includes the Vosges <\/em>and the Black Forest<\/em>, and<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      which extends almost from S-N or from S SW – N NE.<\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. The system comprising the Bohemian Forest <\/em>and the Thuringian Forest<\/em>, including the<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        hills of Autun in the Vend\u00e9e and the hills of southern Britanny; it runs from SE – NW.<\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. The system which includes the Ertz mountains<\/em>, the C\u00f4te d\u2019Or<\/em>, Mount Pilas <\/em>in Forez <\/em>and<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          part of the Jura <\/em>on the left bank of the Rhine; it runs from SW – NE.<\/p>\n

                            \n
                          1. The system of Mount Viso<\/em>, which runs from the coastal mountains (Alpes maritimes) <\/em>of<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            Nice and Antibes all the way to Lons-le-Saulnier; direction N NW – S SE.<\/p>\n

                              \n
                            1. The system of the Pyrenees <\/em>and the Apennines <\/em>whose mountain ranges all run from NW –<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                              SE, comprises i) those parts of the eastern Alps <\/em>which, after dividing at Goritz run from N-W<\/p>\n

                              to S-E across Carinthia, Carniole [in German \u201cKrain\u201d], Croatia and Dalmatia along the<\/p>\n

                              Adriatic sea to the Mor\u00e9e peninsula and the Greek Islands and ii) the largest part of the Hartz<\/em><\/p>\n

                              and the slopes of Westphalia<\/em>, which run parallel to the Teutoburgerwald.<\/p>\n

                                \n
                              1. The mountain system of Corsica <\/em>and Sardinia<\/em>, which runs from S-N. This system most<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                likely includes several mountain ranges from France, Germany, and other neighboring<\/p>\n

                                countries.<\/p>\n

                                  \n
                                1. The system of the western Alps<\/em>, which includes Mont Blanc, <\/em>runs 26<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                  o<\/p>\n

                                  N – 26<\/p>\n

                                  o<\/p>\n

                                    \n
                                  1. It<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                    appears that the mountains along the eastern coast of Spain and the mountains of Scandinavia<\/p>\n

                                    also belong to this same time period.<\/p>\n

                                      \n
                                    1. The system, which comprises the main mountain range of the Alps from Valais to<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                      Austria<\/em>, represents without a doubt the most recent elevation, as the period of its formation<\/p>\n

                                      coincides with the period of transportation of the erratic blocks, which can be found scattered<\/p>\n

                                      throughout alluvial countries. All of the mountain ranges of this colossal system run more or<\/p>\n

                                      less from W-E.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                      Page 20<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                      After having determined the relative age of these mountain systems, de Beaumont in<\/p>\n

                                      conjunction with other geologists, continued his study and comparison of other mountain<\/p>\n

                                      systems in Europe and on the continents. However, since the geological circumstances of<\/p>\n

                                      these continents have not been adequately examined, the ideas that are based on these<\/p>\n

                                      circumstances cannot be considered more than plausible theories <\/em>that have yet to be proven<\/p>\n

                                      either right or wrong. What does seem certain though is that the greater the massif, the more<\/p>\n

                                      recent it\u2019s elevation occurred. It is therefore conceivable that with the gradual thickening of<\/p>\n

                                      the earth\u2019s crust the younger mountains were elevated by a much more powerful and violent<\/p>\n

                                      force than the older ones. This hypothesis is as indisputable as the idea upon which Mr. Elie<\/p>\n

                                      de Beaumont has based his system of classification.<\/p>\n

                                      [1] Geschichte der Geognosie<\/em>. Berlin, 1838<\/p>\n

                                      Le Deluge<\/strong>, Chapter VI \u2013 Part 1<\/p>\n

                                      The theory of the creation of the world<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                      The illustrious French physicist, Arago, claimed that the earth is a star, which became<\/p>\n

                                      covered in a crust when it cooled. This concept is not new, as Descartes and Leibnitz<\/p>\n

                                      considered the planet to be a sun with a rigid crust. This hypothesis can be considered to be<\/p>\n

                                      as lovely as it is true, as long as we do not err to assume that within the universe, the sun or<\/p>\n

                                      the stars are at any lesser stage of development than the earth. Such an assumption would be<\/p>\n

                                      particularly devoid of any basis since everything we know concerning these stars points to the<\/p>\n

                                      contrary. What\u2019s more, we have no authorization to judge the development of the stars<\/p>\n

                                      relative to that of the earth. If the millions of stars, which are scattered throughout space, are<\/p>\n

                                      governed by the same fundamental laws of the earth and are made up of the same primitive<\/p>\n

                                      matter, then we have reason to believe that no two stars have ever been subject to the same<\/p>\n

                                      conditions or circumstances. Just like the power of the Creator, the diversity of creation is<\/p>\n

                                      infinite.<\/p>\n

                                      In early prehistoric times, as in all other time periods of the world, igneous matter was<\/p>\n

                                      hurled out of the depths of the earth. The volcanoes, which are still active in various climates<\/p>\n

                                      around the world, demonstrate so much similarity with respect to their phenomena, that they<\/p>\n

                                      must be considered to be an effect of the same cause. Hot springs emerge out of the depths of<\/p>\n

                                      the earth and gush forth in large quantities from the various layers of the earth. Relevant to<\/p>\n

                                      these facts, which show evidence of the internal heat of the earth, is the important recent<\/p>\n

                                      discovery of increasing temperatures taken from the earth\u2019s surface going downwards during<\/p>\n

                                      surveys that were done for the construction of artesian wells. The information about the<\/p>\n

                                      interior of the earth acquired by this means showed us that despite layers of ice, which can be<\/p>\n

                                      found in various regions such as Saxony, Hungary, Russia, and Sweden, the internal heat of<\/p>\n

                                      the earth, which is independent of the sun and exterior atmosphere, increases at such an<\/p>\n

                                      astounding rate that if this increase were to continue proportionally, the earth would be<\/p>\n

                                      burning at a depth of one and half geographic miles, twice the height of the Cotopaxi, and at a<\/p>\n

                                      depth of five to six miles all things would be in a state of fusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                      Page 21<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                      According to Leonhard\u2019s meaningful theory, if we believe that the earth was<\/p>\n

                                      originally in a gaseous state, or rather that all of the solid elements which form its substance<\/p>\n

                                      were spread around in the form of vapors in an area much larger than they occupy today, we<\/p>\n

                                      should conclude that little by little the temperature of these vapors was diminished by the<\/p>\n

                                      emanation of the heat. The less fluid bodies, and the heaviest, which were the metals, must<\/p>\n

                                      have been the first to condense so as to form a metallic core in the center of the area whose<\/p>\n

                                      scorching heat prevented the condensation of the other substances. Later on however, other<\/p>\n

                                      materials must have condensed under the influence of their affinities and created new<\/p>\n

                                      compounds. Due to their strong affinity with a number of other substances, potassium and<\/p>\n

                                      sodium most likely played a key role in these processes. Little by little the temperature<\/p>\n

                                      continued to decrease. Oxygen, hydrogen and sulfur, in general all of the non-metallic<\/p>\n

                                      bodies, combined with one another and produced water and other compounds. After the<\/p>\n

                                      internal heat, which accompanied the first mixture of elements, separated the igneous parts<\/p>\n

                                      from those which were volatile and the other substances melted according to their chemical<\/p>\n

                                      affinities, an initial spherical layer consisting of rocks, those being: gneiss, micaceous schist,<\/p>\n

                                      and the oldest granites, formed around the nucleus of the earth. Consequently, the first<\/p>\n

                                      products of the earth\u2019s internal creative force, which can be found in the depths of mines as<\/p>\n

                                      well as on the snowy peaks of many mountains, are the first results of the coagulation of the<\/p>\n

                                      earth\u2019s surface. They are the so-called primitive mountains <\/em>and form the base of all later rock<\/p>\n

                                      formations. At that time, neither plant nor animal life had developed yet: therefore, these<\/p>\n

                                      original rock masses must not have contained any traces of organic bodies. Over time, the<\/p>\n

                                      development of the internal heat of the earth continued to diminish as the amount of heat that<\/p>\n

                                      was being emitted began to exceed the amount being produced. Little by little the surface of<\/p>\n

                                      the earth cooled and a considerable part of the atmosphere, which had surrounded the globe<\/p>\n

                                      up until that point changed into drops\/liquid, and precipitated to the surface in torrential<\/p>\n

                                      downpours. The influence of this water was not only mechanical, but also generated chemical<\/p>\n

                                      activity as a result of its very high temperature. The earth\u2019s crust, which was still quite thin,<\/p>\n

                                      was unable to resist the expansive internal forces. Large and small pieces of debris were torn<\/p>\n

                                      away and the layers of gneiss, micaceous schist, and granite broke down and decomposed.<\/p>\n

                                      The huge masses of water were violently agitated and driven by their natural tendency to<\/p>\n

                                      remain in equilibrium they precipitated from all sides, flooding the chasms, which had<\/p>\n

                                      resulted from the subsidence of the land. Huge areas of the former surface, and maybe even<\/p>\n

                                      the entire surface, were invaded by the water, which created enormous masses made up of<\/p>\n

                                      broken and decomposed matter. This sludge was the origin of the slate soils, which were not<\/p>\n

                                      a new creation but were the altered result of a previous formation. The eruptions did not<\/p>\n

                                      cease, however and the repeated upheavals from the original plutonic crust, which was<\/p>\n

                                      initially formed as one complete whole, explain why these plutonic masses are often only<\/p>\n

                                      found in specific isolated areas or over certain distances in the form of mountain ranges. The<\/p>\n

                                      contraction of certain parts of the earth\u2019s crust produced fissures and caves. Water penetrated<\/p>\n

                                      through these openings to the interior of the earth and caused new eruptions. From within the<\/p>\n

                                      earth emerged the granites, the \u201csyenites\u201d, the porphyries and the ancient limestone, which<\/p>\n

                                      broke up the former crust of gneiss, micaceous schist, and granite and seeped into the fissures<\/p>\n

                                      sometimes rising above the surface of this crust only to be hurled back down. Similar to the<\/p>\n

                                      older melted matter, these secondary plutonic masses do not contain any plant or animal<\/p>\n

                                      fossils since no living thing could have inhabited the earth at that point. Nor do they contain<\/p>\n

                                      detrital rocks or fragments of rock, which are rounded and smooth, as a result of having been<\/p>\n

                                      rubbed together by the violent and agitated action of water. On the other hand however, these<\/p>\n

                                      masses do contain angular debris from the older plutonic masses, for example; fragments of<\/p>\n

                                      old granite have been found in more recently formed granite, fragments of gneiss in porphyry<\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                      Page 22<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                      and pieces of micaceous schist in limestone, etc. This is obvious proof that the most recent<\/p>\n

                                      plutonic formations emerged through the earliest crust of the earth.<\/p>\n

                                      The waters also exerted considerable influence and continued to be both destructive and<\/p>\n

                                      regenerative at the same time. The varied materials upon which these waters acted would<\/p>\n

                                      eventually become the earliest slate<\/em>, sand<\/em>, and limestone <\/em>soils. Little by little the sea caused<\/p>\n

                                      these soils to settle. They can be divided up into different groups corresponding with the<\/p>\n

                                      important epochs in the history of the formation of the soils during and after the major<\/p>\n

                                      revolutions that acted upon the earth\u2019s crust. The various formations can be distinguished<\/p>\n

                                      from one another according to particular characteristics: the Neptunian formations, which<\/p>\n

                                      make up the lower soils, are always older than those covering them since the subsequent<\/p>\n

                                      deposits must have settled on top of those already in existence. As these Neptunian deposits<\/p>\n

                                      were settling, thereby contributing to the consistency and thickness of the earth\u2019s crust, the<\/p>\n

                                      internal force of the earth lifted the land higher and higher above the water, initially to form<\/p>\n

                                      islands, subsequently as protruding mountain ranges and finally, as continents. Plants<\/p>\n

                                      quickly covered the earth and the appearance of primitive animals coincided roughly with<\/p>\n

                                      this early and simple vegetation. At that time, the condition of the earth must have differed<\/p>\n

                                      greatly from what it is today since all of the plant and animal remains found in the earliest<\/p>\n

                                      Neptunian soils belong to extinct species, which differ completely from species of today.<\/p>\n

                                      Violent catastrophes destroyed this first creation and many others over thousands of years;<\/p>\n

                                      however no creation was ever wiped out without being replaced by a newer and more perfect<\/p>\n

                                      order of things.<\/p>\n

                                      While the earth\u2019s coagulated crust was still quite thin a tropical climate must have<\/p>\n

                                      prevailed, even in those regions furthest from the equator. The earth\u2019s crust emitted hot<\/p>\n

                                      vapors from everywhere, boiling springs gushed forth, and plants grew to gigantic<\/p>\n

                                      proportions, proof of which has been found in buried forests and carboniferous soils. The<\/p>\n

                                      power of the vegetation of that period is truly astonishing. Little by little however, this<\/p>\n

                                      abundance diminished as the earth\u2019s crust began to cool and the climates began to differ.<\/p>\n

                                      Consequently, a much larger variety of plant forms emerged. It is likely that during the first<\/p>\n

                                      period of creation the rays from the sun were not able to penetrate the atmosphere, which<\/p>\n

                                      would have been densely covered in vapors. According to geologists, the atmosphere must<\/p>\n

                                      have been considerably different than that of its present state and its proportion of carbonic<\/p>\n

                                      acid must have been much greater. Nevertheless, the heat of the sun was most likely just as<\/p>\n

                                      influential on the development of the earth as it was on plant and animal life.<\/p>\n

                                      As the earth\u2019s crust continued to cool, the internal force of the globe continued to<\/p>\n

                                      build. Considerable upheavals occurred in various regions and the surface of the continent<\/p>\n

                                      increased. Elsewhere, waves swelled up in the immense ocean and all friable matter was<\/p>\n

                                      swept away by the water, thereby eliminating all things dissolvable. The larger deposits that<\/p>\n

                                      were left formed new slate, sandy and calcareous soils. The occurrence of these Neptunian<\/p>\n

                                      catastrophes alternating with Plutonic eruptions, particularly the expulsion of granite and<\/p>\n

                                      porphyry, must have been frequent considering the number of layers that have been<\/p>\n

                                      discovered.<\/p>\n

                                      As the occurrence of these upheavals decreased and the physical state of the earth<\/p>\n

                                      began to stabilize, the sun emerged in all its brilliance, penetrating the hot and cloudy<\/p>\n

                                      atmosphere. More advanced forms of plant and animal life subsequently appeared. At last,<\/p>\n

                                      with the state of things ready for the arrival of man, he was created by the hand of the<\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                      Page 23<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                      Almighty to reign on earth, which was rendered for him through considerable and radical<\/p>\n

                                      change to serve as his dwelling-place for his journey through life.<\/p>\n

                                      In essence, this theory coincides with the narrative in the first chapter of Genesis<\/em>.*<\/p>\n

                                      (this text appears in the French version only)<\/p>\n

                                      Such is the abridged version of the remarkable history of the earth, whose<\/p>\n

                                      fundamental periods have been determined by natural scientists. No doubt it is interesting to<\/p>\n

                                      compare this history of creation with that written in the first chapter of Genesis, which clearly<\/p>\n

                                      and greatly surpasses cosmogonies1<\/p>\n

                                      [1]<\/p>\n

                                      of other ancient cultures and could be considered<\/p>\n

                                      entirely true if, as many scholars believe, it is acknowledged that the transcription by ancient<\/p>\n

                                      copyists of the narrative of the creation was not always accurate and that the alteration of a<\/p>\n

                                      word or phrase could have occurred. Supposing however, that such errors did not occur, after<\/p>\n

                                      we learn in Genesis that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, which agrees<\/p>\n

                                      with W. Buckland\u2019s2[2]<\/p>\n

                                      notion of the universe and the undeveloped mass of the globe, the<\/p>\n

                                      narrative goes on to recount the stages of creation generally in keeping with the<\/p>\n

                                      aforementioned geological theory and describes the gradual development of the earth: the<\/p>\n

                                      light, which is essential for the existence of all organic life, was created first; the aqueous<\/p>\n

                                      vapors dispersed to form clouds (the water above the expanse) and the sea (the water below<\/p>\n

                                      the expanse); the land and water separated; organic life developed very early; the sun, the<\/p>\n

                                      moon and the stars broke through the vaporous atmosphere and revealed themselves in all<\/p>\n

                                      their splendor; higher forms of beings emerged and finally, man was created by the hand of<\/p>\n

                                      God:<\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.<\/li>\n
                                      2. Now the earth was<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                        [1]<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                        formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep,<\/p>\n

                                        and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.<\/p>\n

                                          \n
                                        1. And God said, \u201cLet there be light\u201d, and there was light.<\/li>\n
                                        2. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.<\/li>\n
                                        3. God called the light \u201cday\u201d, and the darkness he called \u201cnight\u201d. And there was<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                          evening, and there was morning-the first day.3<\/p>\n

                                          [3]<\/p>\n

                                            \n
                                          1. And God said, \u201cLet there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                            water\u201d.<\/p>\n

                                              \n
                                            1. So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                              above it. And it was so.<\/p>\n

                                              1[1] A summary of these cosmogonies can be found in Link\u2019s Urwelt <\/em>, Berlin 1821, volume 1,<\/p>\n

                                                \n
                                              1. 268.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                2[2] Geology and Mineralogy, I, 19.<\/p>\n

                                                3[3] It is clear that in the Scripture, the word \u201cday\u201d has a double meaning since it states that<\/p>\n

                                                the sun was not created, or, in the words of the bible, did not shine upon the earth until the<\/p>\n

                                                fourth day. Subsequently, it seems to me that at least the first three days of creation cannot<\/p>\n

                                                really be considered to be ordinary days. If, as is taught by geologists, we are permitted to<\/p>\n

                                                understand these three days as being periods of creation, then we should not be prevented<\/p>\n

                                                from assuming the same of the following three days, or in other words, to assume that the six<\/p>\n

                                                days of the Scripture are specific, main epochs in the history of the development of the earth,<\/p>\n

                                                each of which containing within it several periods of creation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                                Page 24<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
                                                  \n
                                                1. God called the expanse \u201csky\u201d. And there was evening, and there was morning-the<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                  second day.<\/p>\n

                                                    \n
                                                  1. And God said, \u201cLet the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                    ground appear\u201d. And it was so.<\/p>\n

                                                      \n
                                                    1. God called the dry ground \u201cland\u201d, and the gathered wasters he called \u201cseas\u201d. And<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                      God saw that it was good.<\/p>\n

                                                        \n
                                                      1. Then God said, \u201cLet the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                        land that bear fruit with see in it, according to their various kinds\u201d. And it was so.<\/p>\n

                                                          \n
                                                        1. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                          bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good<\/p>\n

                                                            \n
                                                          1. And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.<\/li>\n
                                                          2. And God said, \u201cLet there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                            the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years4<\/p>\n

                                                            [4]<\/p>\n

                                                            ,<\/p>\n

                                                              \n
                                                            1. And let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth\u201d. And it was<\/li>\n
                                                            2. <\/li>\n
                                                            3. God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                              govern the night. He also made the stars.<\/p>\n

                                                                \n
                                                              1. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,<\/li>\n
                                                              2. to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                that it was good.<\/p>\n

                                                                  \n
                                                                1. And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.<\/li>\n
                                                                2. And God said, \u201cLet the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                  earth across the expanse of the sky\u201d.<\/p>\n

                                                                    \n
                                                                  1. So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                    which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to<\/p>\n

                                                                    its kind. And God saw that it was good.<\/p>\n

                                                                      \n
                                                                    1. God blessed them and said, \u201cBe fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                      the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth\u201d.<\/p>\n

                                                                        \n
                                                                      1. And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.<\/li>\n
                                                                      2. And God said, \u201cLet the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                        livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to<\/p>\n

                                                                        its kind\u201d. And it was so.<\/p>\n

                                                                          \n
                                                                        1. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                          kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And<\/p>\n

                                                                          God saw that it was good.<\/p>\n

                                                                            \n
                                                                          1. Then God said, \u201cLet us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                            the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth<\/p>\n

                                                                            [2]<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                            , and<\/p>\n

                                                                            over all the creatures that move along the ground\u201d.<\/p>\n

                                                                              \n
                                                                            1. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                              female he created them.<\/p>\n

                                                                              4[4] It might seem strange that plants would have been able to develop before sunlight<\/p>\n

                                                                              penetrated the atmosphere, however we must not forget that recent discoveries have shown<\/p>\n

                                                                              that the presence of sunlight is not necessary for the development of several plant varieties, in<\/p>\n

                                                                              particular ferns, which thrive in hot and humid conditions. Ferns played a highly important<\/p>\n

                                                                              role in some of the oldest periods of the earth\u2019s development and grew to giant proportions,<\/p>\n

                                                                              not dissimilar to the size of trees today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                                                              Page 25<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
                                                                                \n
                                                                              1. God blessed them and said to them, \u201cBe fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                                and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every<\/p>\n

                                                                                living creature that moves on the ground\u201d.<\/p>\n

                                                                                  \n
                                                                                1. Then God said, \u201cI give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                                  and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.<\/p>\n

                                                                                    \n
                                                                                  1. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                                    move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant<\/p>\n

                                                                                    for food\u201d. And it was so.<\/p>\n

                                                                                      \n
                                                                                    1. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                                      was morning-the sixth day.5<\/p>\n

                                                                                      [5]<\/p>\n

                                                                                      Footnotes from New International Version (NIV), International Bible Society<\/p>\n

                                                                                      [1] <\/strong>1:2 Or possibly became<\/em><\/p>\n

                                                                                      [2] <\/strong>1:26 Hebrew; Syriac all the wild animals<\/em><\/p>\n

                                                                                      Later on we will show that there is no plausible reason to doubt that at least 6,000<\/p>\n

                                                                                      years have passed since the creation of the human race.<\/p>\n

                                                                                      Another question to be answered is how many thousands of years passed before the<\/p>\n

                                                                                      earth became covered in a solid crust and became habitable for man. Studying petrification<\/p>\n

                                                                                      found within the earth has been the most reliable way of dealing with this question.<\/p>\n

                                                                                      Consequently, it is of utmost importance to geologists to determine how much time is<\/p>\n

                                                                                      required for petrification, that is, how much time it takes for mineral substances to replace<\/p>\n

                                                                                      organic matter. By means of similar research and by examining how much time it took for<\/p>\n

                                                                                      the Neptunian soils to settle6<\/p>\n

                                                                                      [6]<\/p>\n

                                                                                      , perhaps one day we will arrive at plausible conjectures<\/p>\n

                                                                                      concerning the age of the earth, or rather the minimum length of time it took for creation to<\/p>\n

                                                                                      occur. We know that the duration of petrification depends on the exterior and interior of the<\/p>\n

                                                                                      organism destined to undergo this transformation. This explains how bones, which were<\/p>\n

                                                                                      found buried in calcareous silt, were petrified within the short span of 1 year to the point<\/p>\n

                                                                                      where they were identical to animal fossils contained in limestone, whereas some species of<\/p>\n

                                                                                      trees can take centuries to petrify. There is a remarkable example of this in the bridge that<\/p>\n

                                                                                      5[5]<\/p>\n

                                                                                      English version Genesis 1: New International Version (NIV), International Bible Society, 1984.<\/p>\n

                                                                                      French version from the Sainte Bible<\/em>, new translation by Mr. de Genoude, Paris 1845.<\/p>\n

                                                                                      6[6] Mr. Forchhammer, Professor at the University of Copenhagen , has contributed<\/p>\n

                                                                                      enormously to this part of geology through his research to clarify matters concerning this<\/p>\n

                                                                                      subject. I am convinced that this research, which has been conducted in accordance with the<\/p>\n

                                                                                      principles established by this scientist, will contribute greatly in shedding a new light on<\/p>\n

                                                                                      geology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                                                                      Page 26<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                                                                      Emperor Trajan built on the Danube at the beginning of the war against Dacia . Seventeen<\/p>\n

                                                                                      hundred years later when Emperor Fran\u00e7ois I, had this bridge examined, it was shown that<\/p>\n

                                                                                      the petrification of a 33 centimeter deep post had only reached 13 millimeters, such that if the<\/p>\n

                                                                                      petrification continued at that rate, it would have taken thousands of years for the entire post<\/p>\n

                                                                                      to be transformed into stone. Based on this finding, we can make an approximate guess as to<\/p>\n

                                                                                      the amount of time it took for the famous 1 meter 30 centimeter oak trunk that was<\/p>\n

                                                                                      discovered several years ago near the village of Penicuick , close to Edinburgh , to turn to<\/p>\n

                                                                                      stone. This trunk is without a doubt the product of one of the more recent periods in the<\/p>\n

                                                                                      development of the earth. We can therefore make a judgment on the age of the earth<\/p>\n

                                                                                      according to the large number of periods throughout the earth\u2019s history and the length of<\/p>\n

                                                                                      these time periods. The tremendous amount of time taken by the Neptunian soils to settle is<\/p>\n

                                                                                      no less surprising. Should we therefore accept the opinion established by numerous<\/p>\n

                                                                                      geologists that the earth took several million years to develop, or would it be more accurate to<\/p>\n

                                                                                      reduce this number to indicate a shorter time period? Although the former are closer to the<\/p>\n

                                                                                      truth, I will not spend any more time on this problem, which due to the great difficulty in<\/p>\n

                                                                                      determining the age of the Plutonian soils, will always be impossible to solve adequately.<\/p>\n

                                                                                      Le Deluge<\/strong>, Part 1, Chapter XII<\/p>\n

                                                                                      Editor\u2019s Comments on Part 1, Chapter XII<\/p>\n

                                                                                      This is a key chapter because it discusses the author\u2019s hypothesis that the earth\u2019s axis<\/p>\n

                                                                                      suddenly tilted about 4,000 years ago, thus bringing on the Biblical Noahic Flood. (A sudden,<\/p>\n

                                                                                      major shift in the earth’s axis is highly improbable, but there is evidence that Earth’s magnetic<\/p>\n

                                                                                      field reverses at intervals . The last such event, called the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal, is<\/p>\n

                                                                                      theorized to have occurred some 780,000 years ago.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        \n
                                                                                      1. Klee’s interpretation of the Noahic flood bears little resemblance to the Biblical flood. In<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                                                                        his view, the \u201cflood\u201d consisted of a vast array of upheavals involving volcanic activity and<\/p>\n

                                                                                        dramatic shifts of the earth\u2019s crust. Moreover, he describes it as having taken place over an<\/p>\n

                                                                                        extended time period. It is an interesting speculation and an impressive attempt to explain a<\/p>\n

                                                                                        wide range of transformations the earth went through over its long history. We must<\/p>\n

                                                                                        appreciate it as a product of a time when geological science was barely in its infancy and<\/p>\n

                                                                                        religious creationist dogma still ruled.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Klee recognizes that the earth must be far older than literally implied in the Bible, but he<\/p>\n

                                                                                        more or less accepts the prevailing view of his time that God created humans only about<\/p>\n

                                                                                        6,000 years ago. (In Part 1, Chapter VI, he hedges by saying \u201cLater on we will show that<\/p>\n

                                                                                        there is no plausible reason to doubt that at least <\/em><\/strong>6,000 years have passed since the creation of<\/p>\n

                                                                                        the human race.\u201d Even Charles Darwin and the famed geologist Charles Lyell did not dare<\/p>\n

                                                                                        challenge this assumption at the time Klee\u2019s book was published. Since the \u201cflood\u201d<\/p>\n

                                                                                        supposedly occurred after the creation of mankind, Klee attempts to squeeze much of the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        earth\u2019s geological transformation into that time frame. In those days it was risky to challenge<\/p>\n

                                                                                        the prevailing views of religious fundamentalism. Charles Darwin, who was an English<\/p>\n

                                                                                        contemporary of Klee waited until 1859 to publish his theory of evolution for this reason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                                                                        Page 27<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                                                                        In other parts of the book, Klee reinterprets and even contradicts the literal Biblical account<\/p>\n

                                                                                        of history. I am inclined to believe that although religious, he did not subscribe to a literal<\/p>\n

                                                                                        interpretation.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Although his time scale is way off, some of Klee\u2019s speculations about shifting continents are<\/p>\n

                                                                                        consistent with modern plate tectonic theory, which did not become scientifically accepted<\/p>\n

                                                                                        until over a century after Klee\u2019s book appeared. (See my footnote to this chapter) His theory<\/p>\n

                                                                                        of a dramatic shift of the earth\u2019s axis was resurrected by Velikovsky in a best selling book<\/p>\n

                                                                                        \u201cWorlds in Collision\u201d, <\/em><\/strong>published in1950. Velikovsky\u2019s claims that such a conjectured pole<\/p>\n

                                                                                        shift was caused by colliding planets and comets are ridiculed by astronomers. Velikovsky<\/p>\n

                                                                                        also has the rotation of the earth changing direction too. In contrast, Klee\u2019s hypothesis was<\/p>\n

                                                                                        based on sound mechanical principles of the earth\u2019s dynamics.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        In 1997 Kirschvink et al from the California Institute of Technology published evidence of<\/p>\n

                                                                                        massive shifts of the earth\u2019s crust during the Cambrian period. Kirschvink proposes, because<\/p>\n

                                                                                        the earth itself turned upside down, an abnormally rapid reorganization of the earth’s crust,<\/p>\n

                                                                                        tens of times faster than normal continental drift, touched off sharp climatic shifts that in turn<\/p>\n

                                                                                        unleashed a torrent of evolutionary change. {As reported in Scientific American)<\/p>\n

                                                                                        https:\/\/www.sciam.com\/article.cfm?articleID=000D1CA5-AB38-1C76-<\/p>\n

                                                                                        9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=2&catID=4<\/p>\n

                                                                                        \u201cWhen volcanic rocks cool, they preserve an imprint of the earth’s magnetic field; once<\/em><\/p>\n

                                                                                        locked in, the magnetic record in the rock does not shift. The direction and inclination of the<\/em><\/p>\n

                                                                                        field in the rock indicates both the latitude of the rock and its orientation relative to the North<\/em><\/p>\n

                                                                                        Pole at the time it solidified.<\/em><\/p>\n

                                                                                        When Kirschvink and his collaborators studied rocks from Australia , they found that the<\/em><\/p>\n

                                                                                        continent rotated by 90 degrees between 534 million and 505 million years ago.<\/em><\/p>\n

                                                                                        Paleomagnetic data collected around North America appear to show a similarly abrupt<\/em><\/p>\n

                                                                                        dislocation of the continents relative to the earth’s axis. The tectonic regions associated with<\/em><\/p>\n

                                                                                        Australia and North America cover two thirds of the earth’s continental crust, leading the<\/em><\/p>\n

                                                                                        researchers to a startling conclusion: that the entire surface of the earth rotated 90 degrees<\/em><\/p>\n

                                                                                        in a geologically brief 15 million years. The earth’s crust must have been shifting at least 30<\/em><\/p>\n

                                                                                        centimeters per year, or about 10 times the usual rate of continental drift.\u201d <\/em>Scientific<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                        American, August 1997 <\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                        Evidence that the earth\u2019s crust rotated 90 degrees may be a partial confirmation of F. Klee\u2019s<\/p>\n

                                                                                        hypothesis that the earth\u2019s axis had undergone a similar shift. But the shift of tectonic plates<\/p>\n

                                                                                        turns out to be a more tenable explanation. However, the time scale is vastly greater than<\/p>\n

                                                                                        anyone could have imagined in 1842. The Cambrian period began about 540 million years<\/p>\n

                                                                                        ago. The Cambrian shift was far greater and more rapid than any other known, but continued,<\/p>\n

                                                                                        gradual plate tectonic movements may account for other anomalies in the fossil record that<\/p>\n

                                                                                        the author discusses.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Louis Agassiz (1807-1873), a Swiss contemporary of F Klee, proposed what is now called<\/p>\n

                                                                                        the glacial theory. This theory was supported by his extensive studies of the Unteraar glacier<\/p>\n

                                                                                        in Switzerland . Generalizing from his findings there, he argued that most of the changes in<\/p>\n

                                                                                        the earth\u2019s surface that had been explained by a Noahic flood are better explained by the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        action of vast glaciers that once covered the globe and the extensive flooding that occurred<\/p>\n

                                                                                        when they melted. This was a revolutionary theory when he first presented it in 1837 and it<\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                                                                        Page 28<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                                                                        was many years before it gained wide scientific acceptance. The basic outlines of his glacial<\/p>\n

                                                                                        theory are no longer in dispute. Agassiz was also a naturalist and he became a famous<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Harvard professor. His adamant lifelong opposition to Darwin \u2019s theory of evolution may<\/p>\n

                                                                                        now be what he is most remembered for.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Recently, oceanographers have put together evidence from analyses of Black Sea sediments<\/p>\n

                                                                                        indicating that about 7500 years ago, a great deluge the equivalent of 200 Niagara Falls<\/p>\n

                                                                                        suddenly filled the Black Sea to its present level. Since this catastrophic event took place<\/p>\n

                                                                                        adjacent to the cradle of civilization, many believe that it may have inspired the Biblical<\/p>\n

                                                                                        account of Noah and the flood. This information was not available to the author of Le<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Deluge, but later in the book he discusses myths and legends of that kind from ancient<\/p>\n

                                                                                        cultures. Gerald D. Klee, MD, Editor<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                        Le Deluge, Chapter XII \u2013 part 1<\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                        Does the assumed direction of the earth\u2019s axis before the flood offer ways of explaining<\/p>\n

                                                                                        certain obscure geological phenomena? The supposed direction of the earth\u2019s axis before the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        deluge explains satisfactorily the frequency and tremendous development of tropical plants<\/p>\n

                                                                                        and animals in current climates where we would least expect to find them. In fact, in my<\/p>\n

                                                                                        hypothesis, the sun\u2019s rays must have covered the majority of these areas before the deluge<\/p>\n

                                                                                        therefore promoting the development of animal and vegetable life to a very high degree. The<\/p>\n

                                                                                        equator traversed the current poles, passing at around 90<\/p>\n

                                                                                        o<\/p>\n

                                                                                        from the meridian of the Faroe<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Islands . It was situated between Africa and Oceania , divided Asia and North America , and<\/p>\n

                                                                                        passed just to the west of South America . The former icy poles occupied the middle of the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        current seas. Europe, Asia, and America formed one continent near the North Pole, and it is<\/p>\n

                                                                                        probable that the sea swallowed up the considerable areas of the coast, since, as previously<\/p>\n

                                                                                        discussed, America was extended much further towards the west, Africa to the east, and Asia<\/p>\n

                                                                                        extended itself south to join Australia (Nouvelle-Hollande) as well as several Oceanic<\/p>\n

                                                                                        islands. Even so, I would not include this hypothesis, as it would not be impossible to<\/p>\n

                                                                                        imagine a different direction of the earth\u2019s axis, which would allow for the sun to shine on an<\/p>\n

                                                                                        equally large area \u2013 especially if it is true that the tilt of the orbital plane on that of rotation<\/p>\n

                                                                                        was as large as it currently is. By attributing to the earth\u2019s axis the direction as mentioned<\/p>\n

                                                                                        above, it will not be necessary to explain the exuberant development of the organic world by<\/p>\n

                                                                                        resorting to an arbitrary assumption that a different climate existed. My proposed hypothesis<\/p>\n

                                                                                        explains how tropical animals and vegetation, which always require warm climates, were<\/p>\n

                                                                                        formerly able to exist in areas which are currently subject to freezing temperatures for months<\/p>\n

                                                                                        on end. This includes how the elephant, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, the hyena, the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        tiger, and other animals of the pre-diluvian world were able to exist in England , France and<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Germany , etc. Furthermore, why is it that the mammoth or the pre-diluvian elephant who,<\/p>\n

                                                                                        based on their structure must have lived in areas covered in rich vegetation, are mainly found<\/p>\n

                                                                                        in Siberia, whereas the mastodon, which is assumed to have preferred warm, swampy areas,<\/p>\n

                                                                                        could have existed in North America, since the physical composition of several areas of this<\/p>\n

                                                                                        region -in particular the areas which are currently inhabited by Indians, provide all of the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        conditions necessary for their existence. This also explains how Greenland could have<\/p>\n

                                                                                        nourished palm trees, whereas at the same time, tropical vegetation and animals existed in<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Mexico, Peru and in South and Central America; how plant fossils found in the carboniferous<\/p>\n

                                                                                        soil of England, France, Belgium, Bohemia, and Canada, as well as in the neighboring areas<\/p>\n

                                                                                        of Baffin Island could have belonged to the same species. Therefore, if we assume that both<\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                                                                        Page 29<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                                                                        Siberia and North America were situated below the line (equator) or that they were further<\/p>\n

                                                                                        apart from each other, and that later on following a displacement of the earth\u2019s axis, these<\/p>\n

                                                                                        lands were situated much closer to the North Pole, we would not be surprised to discover<\/p>\n

                                                                                        rhinoceros or mammoth cadavers in the glaciers of Siberia, where they must have been buried<\/p>\n

                                                                                        for thousands of years after having been seized by the flood in the regions they inhabited.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        This was a necessary consequence of the tilting of the earth\u2019s axis. The water, which<\/p>\n

                                                                                        suddenly turned to ice, completely preserved them from contact with outside air, and<\/p>\n

                                                                                        consequently, also from decomposition, which would have occurred after several days if they<\/p>\n

                                                                                        had remained in water or if they had been subject to the air.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        1<\/p>\n

                                                                                        (In a footnote, F Klee discusses<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Cuvier)<\/p>\n

                                                                                        There is another geological phenomenon, of much greater interest, that goes along with my<\/p>\n

                                                                                        hypothesis of a tilting of the earth\u2019s axis: I am talking about the fact that the large continents,<\/p>\n

                                                                                        which were raised from the heart of the sea run from north to south and not from east to west.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Supposing that the earth\u2019s crust made up of a rocky mass and several stacked layers was<\/p>\n

                                                                                        originally spherical; supposing as well that it\u2019s thickness was, but for a few exceptions,<\/p>\n

                                                                                        uniform, and that the bulging caused by the subterranean fire was the same on all points and<\/p>\n

                                                                                        that no other force of nature was involved in producing the upheaval or subsiding, it is<\/p>\n

                                                                                        obvious that the earth\u2019s crust, once covered by water, would have been equally raised<\/p>\n

                                                                                        everywhere, and consequently, could hardly have been able to raise itself above sea level.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        But we see that precisely the opposite occurred, since vast regions were able to emerge to<\/p>\n

                                                                                        quite a considerable height.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        According to which law of nature did this upheaval take place? That is the question,<\/p>\n

                                                                                        which remains yet to be resolved. Not denying that particular circumstances such as the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        unequal thickness of the earth\u2019s crust or the variable action of the interior heat, could have<\/p>\n

                                                                                        contributed to the raising of the continent above sea level, I think that the essential cause<\/p>\n

                                                                                        could have been none other than the centrifugal force. It is obvious that this force must have<\/p>\n

                                                                                        acted with the most energy near the region of the equator, and consequently, it was in this<\/p>\n

                                                                                        region that the earth\u2019s crust had the most difficulty in resisting the extensive internal force.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Therefore, it is in this area where the elevation of the soil above sea level must have attained<\/p>\n

                                                                                        its maximum height, and must have continued until a balance was restored between the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        various parts of the earth. However, it can be proven with certainty that several local<\/p>\n

                                                                                        circumstances, notably the more or less strong resistance of the earth\u2019s crust, must have<\/p>\n

                                                                                        prevented this crust from rising evenly, so that the most prominent relieves must have been<\/p>\n

                                                                                        formed in areas where the centrifugal force was acting with the most energy I suppose that it<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                        must have occurred at the center of the immense continent, which (I assume) was made up<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                        of the various continents as we know them presently<\/em><\/strong>,*<\/em>(Editor\u2019s comment, see my footnote)<\/p>\n

                                                                                        and which is precisely the one where the highest mountains of Asia and of the world are<\/p>\n

                                                                                        situated. Thus, this area of the earth\u2019s surface would have been the first to drain, and the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        elevation of the great continent would have been augmented towards the equator. Supposing<\/p>\n

                                                                                        that the equator was at some point positioned in the direction, which I believe it to have been<\/p>\n

                                                                                        allocated, we can consequently explain why the great plateau of Upper Asia is the highest<\/p>\n

                                                                                        region above sea level, and subsequently, the plateaus of America, since these plateaus<\/p>\n

                                                                                        correspond precisely to the region of the former equator.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Based on what I have just stated, it may be argued that the continents of Asia and North<\/p>\n

                                                                                        America, especially the regions situated below the former equator or surrounding the current<\/p>\n

                                                                                        North Pole, as well as the regions of central America and a part of Europe, specifically that of<\/p>\n

                                                                                        the eastern plain, were much more elevated than they actually are. My response to this is that<\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                                                                        Page 30<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                                                                        my theory supposes the likelihood that these regions were lowered much later on. Thus, the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        soil of the northern parts of America and Asia inevitably subsided after the tilting of the axis<\/p>\n

                                                                                        when these regions were displaced from the equator to the vicinity of the pole, as a result of<\/p>\n

                                                                                        the centripetal force acting on the centrifugal force, which we know to be almost nil beneath<\/p>\n

                                                                                        the poles. What\u2019s more, experience has taught us that similar subsidences still occur<\/p>\n

                                                                                        nowadays, since according to the observations of M. Pingel, not only Greenland, but also a<\/p>\n

                                                                                        large part of North American and northern Asia are slowly subsiding. As for the continent of<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Central America , there are enough reasons to show that its low elevation above sea level is a<\/p>\n

                                                                                        result of the same forces which determined a partial collapse towards the North Pole and a<\/p>\n

                                                                                        gradual subsidence of the surrounding regions; however, these forces, owing to local<\/p>\n

                                                                                        circumstances, reacted differently in Central America . We must remember that this part of<\/p>\n

                                                                                        the New-World is not only situated close to the current equator, but also to regions, which in<\/p>\n

                                                                                        my opinion, were traversed by the former equator, therefore almost at the junction of both<\/p>\n

                                                                                        equators. In accordance with my theory, the soil of this continent must have been very highly<\/p>\n

                                                                                        elevated above sea level, especially after the tilting of the axis. Let us add that following the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        tilting of the earth\u2019s axis the earth\u2019s crust was probably quite strained (tendu) in these areas,<\/p>\n

                                                                                        as was the neighboring continent of the North Pole, and consequently was strongly subjected<\/p>\n

                                                                                        to breakage and collapse.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Nevertheless, since the continent of Central America was not very wide and as a<\/p>\n

                                                                                        consequence the tension of the earth\u2019s crust would have been less than at the North Pole, it is<\/p>\n

                                                                                        possible that the earth\u2019s crust was only split during subsidence. One circumstance in support<\/p>\n

                                                                                        of this assumption is the existence of an enormous fissure, which according to M. Alexandre<\/p>\n

                                                                                        de Humboldt, crosses the continent of America from east to west, from the coast of the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Atlantic to the Pacific. Several volcanoes are situated along this fissure, which is extended<\/p>\n

                                                                                        between the 18<\/p>\n

                                                                                        o<\/p>\n

                                                                                        and 19<\/p>\n

                                                                                        o<\/p>\n

                                                                                        along a length of 150 leagues. They are the volcanoes of Tuatla,<\/p>\n

                                                                                        Orizaba , Puebla , Nevada di Toluca, Tancitaro, and Colima, which partially rise to a height<\/p>\n

                                                                                        of 5197 meters. Extended from the west side at a distance of more that 50 leagues, this<\/p>\n

                                                                                        fissure crosses the volcanic islands of Revillagigedos, as well as the Sandwich archipelago<\/p>\n

                                                                                        with the Moana-Roa, which is much further away in the south sea and which rises to a height<\/p>\n

                                                                                        of 4872 meters. Such a remarkable coincidence could not be due to chance: the cause for this<\/p>\n

                                                                                        must be located somewhere in a law of physics. As for the great eastern plain in Europe ,<\/p>\n

                                                                                        which was indisputably covered with water, I assume that, contrary to general opinion, it is<\/p>\n

                                                                                        was the consequence of a sudden subsidence, resulting in a violent flood. I will develop my<\/p>\n

                                                                                        ideas as to why I am of this opinion later on.<\/p>\n

                                                                                        It could be argued that my theory is not in keeping with research that has been carried out on<\/p>\n

                                                                                        the level of the five parts of the world; that it is the plateau of Asia and several regions of<\/p>\n

                                                                                        southern America, and not the regions, which are situated below the (current) equator, that<\/p>\n

                                                                                        make up the highest points of the earth. However, one must not lose sight of the fact that the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        earth\u2019s crust must have naturally grown proportionally to the progressive cooling of the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        interior of the earth and the Neptunian deposits. Consequently, we could admit that even<\/p>\n

                                                                                        before the last tilting of the axis, the earth\u2019s crust had a certain consistency, such that these<\/p>\n

                                                                                        plateaus, which are covered in numerous mountain ranges were able to resist subsidence,<\/p>\n

                                                                                        even though the crust was breaking up in other places due to the tilting of the axis, and that<\/p>\n

                                                                                        new mountain ranges were formed and changed the levels of the various regions. Add to this,<\/p>\n

                                                                                        the fact that the weight of the water mass, which initially would have taken a spherical form,<\/p>\n

                                                                                        must have inevitably prevented that the bottom of the sea below the equator from rising to the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        height which the great laws of nature seem to claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
                                                                                        Page 31<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

                                                                                        We could moreover, argue that the various movements, which are evident nowadays, do not<\/p>\n

                                                                                        have anything to do with the influence that I attribute to the centrifugal force. I agree that the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        cause of these present movements is not solely a result of the centrifugal force, but rather of<\/p>\n

                                                                                        another force: the extensive force of the internal heat. Be that as it may, several geological<\/p>\n

                                                                                        facts indicate that the centrifugal force still exerts considerable influence on the land by<\/p>\n

                                                                                        raising it. On the other hand, the fact that the earth\u2019s crust has maintained its current shape<\/p>\n

                                                                                        for several thousands of years is proof that it is consolidated, and consequently, that the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        actual effects of the centrifugal force cannot be compared to those that were produced when<\/p>\n

                                                                                        the crust was still thin enough to be subjected to abrupt and frequent changes. Today, it<\/p>\n

                                                                                        appears that the upheaval and partial subsidence of the earth\u2019s surface were a result of the<\/p>\n

                                                                                        internal heat. Although the effect of this factor differs according to the local circumstances,<\/p>\n

                                                                                        we must nevertheless assume that in general, it tended to inflate the earth\u2019s crust, much like a<\/p>\n

                                                                                        balloon inflates when filled with gas. But, if it is true that the extensive force tends to make<\/p>\n

                                                                                        the unevenness of the earth\u2019s crust disappear, it follows that there will be parts that are closer<\/p>\n

                                                                                        to the center of the earth that will preferentially be subject to the influence of the extensive<\/p>\n

                                                                                        force; it will act with the most energy on the less elevated parts of the earth\u2019s crust and<\/p>\n

                                                                                        mainly on those below sea level. Consequently, it will be these sections of the earth that with<\/p>\n

                                                                                        time will be the most vulnerable to earthquakes. This hypothesis may seem a bit hasty at<\/p>\n

                                                                                        first, especially since until this point, we have claimed the opposite to be true:<\/p>\n

                                                                                        *Editor\u2019s note: F. Klee\u2019s remarkable statement is consistent with tectonic plate theory and<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                        the supercontinent Pangaea. He published this in 1842, long before Wegener proposed<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                        the Continental drift theory in 1912 and more than a century before the theory was<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                        accepted in the second half of the 20th century. As far as I can judge, this idea could have<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                        been intuitive as Klee looked at the jigsaw of continental shapes. Or perhaps he was<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                        thinking of Greek mythology, where the name and the concept of Pangaea are found. He<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                        cites no “modern” source, nor can I find any modern reference to Pangaea before<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                        Wegener.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                        G D Klee, MD, Editor<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

                                                                                         <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                                                                        This is the html version of the file https:\/\/data6.blog.de\/media\/003\/5489003_89ff1e12aa_d.pdf. Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. Page 1 Frederik A. G. Klee (November 26, 1808-March 13, 1864) and Caroline Sophie Marie Frederikke Nicoline v. Moth Klee (July 14, 1812- December 14, 1884) (See Genealogy table II) Frederik was the only […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[5322],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31159","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-archive"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31159","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31159"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31159\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31159"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31159"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlantipedia.ie\/samples\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31159"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}