Description
" ...]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. Thus the low marshes known as the "Blue Licks" in Kentucky, and other similar places abound in specimens of fossil remains. These are often, indeed, quite commonly found near the surface of the ground, and it is a fact that the material and formation of marshy grounds change less through the operation of time than other places. The Pantine Marshes and the Marshfield Fens have preserved forms and characteristics for centuries upon centuries. Why is it then, that we are to be driven for a solution of the question as to the character of this curiosity to a ...]."
Amazon UK