[Thibodeaux]

Many of us that are enlightened and knowledgeable of evolutionary processes are also knowable of accretionary processes.

The universe is everywhere subject to gravity. Every particle has gravitational attraction to other particles. Gravity draws them together. that is, particles accrete into solids that accrete into other solids that in space are attracted and accrete into larger bodies.

The object in question is long and slender. The question rises is how it was formed by accretionary processes.

[bigbob]

Maybe it is a fragment of a larger thing that was formed by accretion.

[Little Pig]

If it is really just a rock, my guess for the method of its formation is as a jet of molten inner core that solidified on ejection from a planet that collided with another planet (perhaps it passed through a cloud of ejected planetary atmosphere?). That would explain not only the shape, but the high velocity.

[unlearner]

“Many of us that are enlightened and knowledgeable of evolutionary processes are also knowable of accretionary processes.”

I get that. A great deal of what is called “evolutionary processes” are observable and verifiable.

But the article distinguishes “whether or not Oumuamua is alien or natural.”

Does this mean that something “alien” is therefore not natural?

Are aliens supernatural? Paranormal? Spiritual?

Or, more directly, is Oumuamua intelligently designed? How can we know?

I’ve been pointing out for years that if we see a turtle on a fence post then it is more logical to assume someone put it there than to speculate that there was a recent flood, or some other silly conjecture. Occam’s razor cuts both ways.

[PreciousLiberty]

"The object in question is long and slender. The question rises is how it was formed by accretionary processes."

Many asteroids are also oblong, formed by collision. Eros, 34 km long:

Granted, Oumuamua is extremely elongated...

[unlearner]

“The universe is everywhere subject to gravity.”

That’s an assertion which can not be proven absolutely, but is a reasonable premise because this is universally observed. The law of gravity is a law because it is universal. But we do not know what causes gravity. We can describe its behavior precisely and predictably, but still do not have a unified field theory.

It is important to question scientific orthodoxy. Doing so is sometimes necessary for scientific progress to occur. There is a difference between science as a method of inquiry and science as a belief system:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

One reason it is important to question orthodoxy here is that the elongated shape of this object could be a demonstration that some of the most common presuppositions we have are incorrect.

For example, how rare is this event? Is this the singular time it has occurred since there was intelligent life on earth? Suppose that such an event has occurred into the distant past with the regularity of once per thousand years. Wouldn’t that be like the universe shooting bullets at us? How could life have survived under such conditions? Is there something special about our galaxy that protects our planet from interstellar objects?

“The object in question is long and slender. The question rises is how it was formed by accretionary processes.”

That may be the question you want to know, but this article claims that scientists such as “Stephen Hawking, are attempting to discover whether or not Oumuamua is alien or natural.”

A non-blog source says something similar:

https://www.space.com/39046-interstellar-object-oumuamua-breakthrough-listen-project.html

The implication is that scientists are investigating whether this object is the remnant of a space ship designed by aliens.

My question is: how can anyone who denounces the concept of Intelligent Design treat such an inquiry as scientific?

[Vision Thing]

The object in question is long and slender. The question rises is how it was formed by accretionary processes.

It was formed by a 10-mile long creature with a high-fiber diet.