|
Author
|
Topic: Candidates for the EF
|
Matthew J. Brauer
Member
Member # 819
|
posted 23. March 2004 13:01
Yes (on the laminae).
The objects are somewhat eroded: distinct toolmarks are not visible, but wouldn't necessarily be expected to remain.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jurie
Member
Member # 716
|
posted 23. March 2004 17:18
I would guess that these items were formed by a combination of design and natural processes. I have no idea of where to peek, so mine is purely based on the descriptions so far.
A hole down the middle: AFAIK, there are no natural processes that could form a straight hole through such a hard substance, so design springs to mind.
Shape: The shapes, though symmetrical around the central axis, does not bear any resemblance to either each other or to other known patterns, therefore no specified complexity, so I guess the shape is naturally formed.
Process: No process was described, so I am further guessing these items were suspended on a spindle of sorts, allowing free rotation. Natural processes then caused rotation and corresponding erosion.
Conclusion: These objects could not have formed purely by natural processes since the process I guessed requires prior mounting on a spindle of sorts, so this part is designed. The shape is not designed since it does not appear to be specified.
BTW where can I peek?
IP: Logged
|
|
Jurie
Member
Member # 716
|
posted 23. March 2004 17:26
Evan asked: quote:
A third question is this: do things made by living but non-intelligent (in what I think is the ID sense) sources count as designed?
I think this question is very important.
It seems to me that if it assumed that life was designed, then anything that is the result of life must be included as least as being a "side effect" of design. If we consider an empty snail's shell, that may not have been specifically designed, but it can't form naturally, so it must be a side effect if life was designed.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic