I
have heard one statue-theorist trying to prove that the decayed
portion of one of the legs showed the presence of flint, and
therefore he argued it could not be a petrifaction. Not so. It
probably would prove, if true, that the figure was not a statue,
for pieces of flint are not found in such material, unless it be
a petrifaction, in which case silicious earth would account for it.
Now it is safe to say that there is no substance that enters into
the composition of stone that does not enter into the formation
of a petrifaction.
Now, these materials are, in cases of petrifaction, brought to
the spot and deposited by action of the water--precisely such an
operation as forms strata of rock; should it not produce the same
effect in the appearance of successive layers or strata in the
subject of petrifaction? With reference to the other objection
to the theory of petrifaction, viz:--that the members of the body
are conjoined and not detached--it is sufficient to say, from the
very nature of the operation of petrifaction, portions of the body
lying in contact would necessarily be conjoined and filled up. The
wasting portions of the body are silently but surely supplied by
nature, and as the transformation progresses, nature causes her
deposit to adhere to its proximate kindred matter, and forms thus
a solid and adhering body.
It is also somewhat worthy of observation that fossiliferous remains
occur more frequently, than elsewhere, in marshy and swampy places
in this country.
Pages:
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54