I’ll play your tangent game..
Seeing a clearly made by man structure, I would presume a man made it. Seeing the same structure on another planet, I would presume an alien made it.
BUT, you’ve now twisted the discussion to YOUR PATHETIC PIGEON HOLE away from the orignal statement.
Seeing “and arch”, what was stated in the original, I would presume that natural forces of erosion created it. No, I didn’t see it happen, but I can see the process occuring in real time. I didn’t see the Grand Canyon “made” but I can see the millions of tons per year of silt washing through the Colorado and presume that erosion had something to do with it.
Pathetic pigeon hole? I think not. I'm free to open up the discussion. It was merely to see if there were any level of complexity that everyone would agree could not be accepted as natural. This is otherwise known as a common point of reference.
My point was to show that many people are resistant to even acknowledge that, thus further argument is pointless.
Its unfortunate that you think that I "twisted" my original question. I assure you that I never changed my intent, however I acknowledge that I did clarify the question when people took off on tangents.