Evidence for God from Science

why two legs instead of one or three - why four instead of three or five - why six instead of five or seven - twinc

twinc wrote:why two legs instead of one or three - why four instead of three or five - why six instead of five or seven - twinc

Because you're a biped?

Because generally speaking even numbers of legs are more balanced/dexterous than odd numbers of legs?

A sort of general symmetry observed in lifeforms proves intelligent design?

How so?

Proinsias wrote:A sort of general symmetry observed in lifeforms proves intelligent design?

How so?

Because its smarter than hoping around on one leg?

Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away a tripleD is posting about how his tripod design as opposed to bipedalism is proof of divine design.

Maybe not.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Proinsias wrote:A sort of general symmetry observed in lifeforms proves intelligent design?

How so?

Because its smarter than hoping around on one leg?

yes hopping mad or stuck in a corner like a three legged stool or just going round in circles getting nowhere or tripping over the odd leg getting no where fast and being vulnerable etc - how is it we did not evolve from none to one to two to three etc - twinc

Isn't their a saying that a one-legged man should not enter an ass kicking contest?
Is that how it goes?

That's the one.

Should a three legged man be first in line....

twinc wrote:why two legs instead of one or three - why four instead of three or five - why six instead of five or seven - twinc

For 5, there are seastars (used to be starfish).
For 3-fold symmetry, there are the extinct trilobozoa.

But the more important question is, what does the post title have to do with the number-of-legs-question?

twinc wrote:why two legs instead of three

Well I don't like to brag, but...

Ok, that was pretty bad. Sorry.

Which came first;
1) the coding for the 3 dimensional form for 2 legs which not only involves the correct geometry for the bone structure but the correct cartilage positioning and the correct muscle attachment points at both ends of a muscle which allows for proper functionality

2)or the integrated control system to operate them which includes the sensors within the legs and the electrical harness that spans from the legs to the brain as well as the operating system that sends the signals for correct operation.

KBCid wrote:Which came first;
1) the coding for the 3 dimensional form for 2 legs which not only involves the correct geometry for the bone structure but the correct cartilage positioning and the correct muscle attachment points at both ends of a muscle which allows for proper functionality

2)or the integrated control system to operate them which includes the sensors within the legs and the electrical harness that spans from the legs to the brain as well as the operating system that sends the signals for correct operation.

I would have thought mutual arising.

Proinsias wrote:I would have thought mutual arising.

That is exactly how evolutionist imagine it to have occured. Now tell me exactly what evidence would that be based on? Imagination is a funny thing, for every imagination one may have for a concept another person can imagine the exact opposite. So how does one determine which imagining is more correct?
The scientific method requires empirical evidence via repeatable experiments that the scientist devises to provide evidence either way for his hypothesis.

KBCid wrote:The scientific method requires empirical evidence via repeatable experiments that the scientist devises to provide evidence either way for his hypothesis.

The experiment does not have to be an actual reoccurrence of the observed event.
Do you seriously think astronomers know nothing about stars because they have never made one on the lab?

Please explain the precise meaning of "repeatable"?
If i open a jar of silver halide outside, i will observe the colorless material turn black.
If I repeat this experiment in 6 hours, it will remain colorless.
Is the scientific method thereby invalidated?

And why should anyone take anything you write seriously? No one saw you type it. When the electrons get transformed into words on my screen, the actual writing has taken place in the past. And some of us seem to believe that we can't know anything about the past unless there was an eyewitness.