FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247  
248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   >>   >|  
l conspiring to prove one uniform truth. Therefore, a general theory of petrification or consolidation of mineral bodies must explain this distinct fact, and not suffer it any longer to remain a _lusus naturae_. [Note 36: Mem. de l'Academie Royale des Sciences, an. 1775.] Let us now consider what it is that we have to explain, upon the supposition of those concretions being formed from a solution. We have, first, To understand what sort of a solution had been employed for the introducing of those various substances; secondly, How those concretions had been formed from such solutions within those bodies of strata; and, lastly, How such concretions could have been formed, without any vestige appearing of the same substance, or of the same operation, in the surrounding part of the stratum. Whatever may be the difficulty of explaining those particular appearances by means of fusion and mechanical force, it is plainly impossible to conceive those bodies formed in those places by infiltration, or any manner of concretion from a state of solution. Naturalists, in explaining the formation of stones, often use a chemical language which either has no proper meaning, or which will not apply to the subject of mineral operations. We know the chemical process by which one or two stony concretions may be formed among bodies passing from one state to another. When, therefore, a change from a former state of things in mineral bodies is judged by naturalists to have happened, the present state is commonly explained, or the change is supposed to have been made by means of a similar process, without inquiring if this had truly been the case or not. Thus their knowledge of chemistry has led naturalists to reason erroneously, in explaining things upon false principles. It would be needless to give an example of any one particular author in this respect; for, so far as I have seen, it appears to be almost general, every one copying the language of another, and no one understanding that language which has been employed. These naturalists suppose every thing done by means of solution in the mineral kingdom, and yet they are ignorant of those solvents. They conceive or they imagine concretions and crystallizations to be formed of every different substance, and in every place within the solid body of the earth, without considering how far the thing is possible which they suppose. They are constantly talking of operations which could only
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247  
248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

formed

 

concretions

 
bodies
 

solution

 

mineral

 

explaining

 

naturalists

 
language
 

employed

 

general


process

 

substance

 

operations

 
change
 
explain
 

things

 

suppose

 
conceive
 

chemical

 

judged


happened
 

similar

 
explained
 

passing

 

inquiring

 

commonly

 

supposed

 

present

 

knowledge

 
respect

imagine

 

crystallizations

 

solvents

 
ignorant
 

kingdom

 
constantly
 
talking
 

understanding

 

needless

 
principles

reason

 
erroneously
 
appears
 

copying

 

author

 

chemistry

 

mechanical

 
Sciences
 
Royale
 

Academie