You are thinking in terms of three-dimensions; circles are two dimensional
objects and pi is a two-dimensional constant. The line that illustrates a
circle is, according to Euclidian geometry, dimensionless; i.e., it has no
thickness. Therefore, one does not use the inner diameter of a circle to
determine the outer circumference of a circle, because circles do not have
"inner" and "outer" areas. Therefore, in the case of the bowl, if you use
the inner diameter you must calculate the inner circumference, in order not
to contradict Euclidian geometry. And the outer circumference must be based
on the outer diameter, for the same reason. Even the ancient Hewbrews
realized this.
>
>>So I guess that rabbits must chew the cud, ...
>
>From what I remember from a Bill Gothard seminar, rabbits do chew the
>cud. They munch fecal pellets. As Gothard said, "The critics were
>looking at the wrong end of the rabbit." :-)
>
Fecal pellets are not the same as the cud; any farmer can tell you that,
even a creationist farmer. The cud is defined as food regurgitated from the
first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant. It is not passed through the
other three stomachs and the intestines to be excreted, then re-eaten. A
cursory examination of a cud and a cow stool would demonstrate that they are
not the same thing.
Rabbits are not ruminants, so they have only the one stomach. They do not
regurgitate their food, but allow it to pass on through the intestines to be
excreted. Since much of the mass of a fecal pellet consistes of undigested
food, rabbits re-ingest their pellets for further mastication and digestion
to get as much nutrition out of it as possible. A comparison of a fecal
pellet with a cow stool and a cud would show that a fecal pellet is far more
like a cow stool than it is like a cud.
I would suggest that Bill Gothard take a few basic biology courses before he
makes any further claims about biological matters.
Kevin L. O'Brien