5. This theory has against it the most positive results of experimental science, added to which it leaves out entirely the question of origin, which it pretends to solve. It tells well how the Earth should be formed, but does not instruct us how the four worlds which constitute this have been formed.
If such things have taken place, why is it that we find no trace of this immense union in any depth which has been explored? If each one brought its own peculiarities of materials, then Asia, Africa, Europe, and America would each have a geology peculiar to themselves, which is not so. On the contrary, the first granite uniform crust of a homogeneous composition is in all parts of the globe without a breach of continuity. Then the geological beds of the same formation are identical in their constitution; everywhere in the same order superposed, continuing, without interruption, from one side to the other of the seas of Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, and conversely. These beds are witnesses to the transformations of the globe, attesting that these transformations have been accomplished over its entire surface, and not upon one part alone. It shows us equally well the periods of the appearance, existence, and disappearance of the same species of animals and vegetables in different parts of the world; the fauna and flora of these remote periods, marching everywhere simultaneously under the influence of a uniform temperature, changing in character everywhere according as the temperature is modified. Such a state of things is irreconcilable with the theory of the formation of the Earth by the additions of many different worlds.
One would naturally inquire: What would become of the sea, which occupies the void left by the moon, if the latter had desired to join its sisters? Also what would become of the Earth if the moon should some day take a fancy to join the others, take its place, and expel the sea.