I used to feel that Stone was better, but I don't really agree now that I've been playing more. Sure, the early Stone wonders are fantastic, but the early game, unless you're in isolation or semi-isolation with someone like Mansa Musa/Hammurabi (wait...scratch that, I'll explain later) should be about getting your basic infrastructure, cities, and workers out to improve those tiles.
Sure, if you can fit in Stonehenge or something between city growth for settlers/workers that might not be bad, but the price you pay for those early wonders is in land, especially if you have Imperialistic/Creative leaders near you who will be snapping up land very quickly.
Marble on the other hand is useful AFTER you've gotten those cities out and can figure out what you want to do. Need more GPP? Parthenon. Research/GPs? GLib. Heroic Epic for more efficient troop production to garrison/war. National Epic to crank out more GPs.
Stone later on gets worse too -
USankore is workable only if you're running a religion (not a possibility on some maps - do you really want to run a different religion than happy-spammy Sury, convert-or-die Isabella, Saladin, or Zara Yaqob? Of course, if you have the same religion as them...go for it. But you can't count on religion spreading to you either for that option, and post Optics (which is when Paper is more or less researched) is when other civs are going to be showing up, presumably with different religions.
Spiral Minaret is nice but it's activated by a dead-end tech, and again, you need a religion for it to be workable.
edit: Once ended up on the same continent as MM/Hammurabi and thought I could out-tech MM peacefully to Liberalism. Haha. He put it up in like 800 AD, and I quit right there.