Richie, you have made a claim repeatedly about testing with your senses.

"When vou give me the evedence that animals reproduce diferent species I will take the time to reserch the corolation or relationship between diameter and circle."

I've provided you with a simple test where the bible is clearly in error and which can be easily tested with senses. The bible's error in that point is not large but enough to demonstrate that it's not a science document. I also provided a reference where the bible claims that bat's are birds, something else which can be easily tested.

Proving the relationship between the diameter of a circle and it's circumference is an easy check which most of us could do in a few minutes, proof of evolution is a much more complex business.

I've given an example in response to a specific claim which you have made a couple of times. By insisting on evidence for a complex issue before you test a simple issue put as a response to your own claims you are behaving exactly as I suggested.

R0bert

roobert<..relationship between diameter and circle."

I've provided you with a simple test where the bible is clearly in error and which can be easily tested with senses.>>>as richie has replied...he uses the self same senses..yet your both divergent...looks like your spinning on about bibles/birds/boundry of circles isnt proving evolution

<<The bible's error in that point>>>that point being censes or sircles?

<<is not large but enough to demonstrate..that it's not a science document.>>..see thats not the point in dispute...its so typical of those asked to validate their THEORY...to demons=-straight..anything but proof of the theory

<<I also provided a reference>>>to a non science book...lol..[its a law book by the way...that eventually simplifies the law to love god/love neighbour...and not to take oath...mathew5;33-48..matt 23;16-26

<<where the bible claims that bat's are birds>>>as it has been explained,..thats a miss translation..<<something else which can be easily tested>> mainly because..no one claimed it science...lol.

<<proof of evolution is a much more complex business>>>interesting the use of ..'busines''..lol...see how many words you have used avoiding saying that you clearly are unable to explain...lol its too complex...yet you quoted..missquoted...the bible...out of context...it has no science weight..and..dosnt make/claim to.

<<I've given an example..in response to a specific claim..which you have made a couple of times>>...gee i must have missed it[that was your bible quotes rebutting to be science[right?]

<<By insisting on evidence..for a complex issue..before you test a simple issue..>>>was a good begining...but then you waffle on with...<<..put as a response..to your own claims>>...lol..<<you are behaving exactly as I suggested..>>..please advise where...lol

while were at it can you explain what your trying to say...and as ps..present some science.

Do a skit on Hey Hey.

Dear under one god,
I imagine your favourite scripture is " A merry heart does good like medicine, But a broken spirit dries the bones." There is no point in foolish arguments over words . If I offend you please forgive me because I don't ever want to be a stumbling block preventing anyone from a relationship with his heavenly Father.
Richie

Ritchie10 <"...give me the evedence that animals reproduce different species..."
What?
Who ever said that happened? Certainly there is plenty of evidence that animals EVOLVE into more advanced animals as climate and environmental conditions change eg Mammoths into Elephants.

I haven't ever heard of one animal reproducing another different animal as such. Has anyone else?

On the other hand, the bible expects us to believe that 2 animals of each species on earth sailed on the ark with Noah and his family during the great flood, and then must have had incestuous sex with their progeny to produce all the animals to populate the earth when it dried out?

Amazingly, we are expected to believe there was not massive amounts of deformed animals produced in this manner.

However,we have plenty of examples in our history, and even today, where inbreeding of animals cause untold problems.
Why not on the ark?

from
http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/images/v26/i1/wright_feather2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp&usg=__NZBdIC0odfacAGGH9JwCQjZmfZY=&h=131&w=200&sz=26&hl=en&start=51&sig2=7W32aCgvSY5j6Rq6x6A9OQ&tbnid=mXMuzSMj32lK9M:&tbnh=68&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfossil%2Bfeather%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DMEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB%26sa%3DN%26start%3D36&ei=gErPSpzBNZXe7APnuZj3AQ

Conclusions
Even though fossil impressions..of feathers..are abundant in the fossil record,..and much has been written..speculating on how scale-to-feather/evolution..could have..occurred,..not a shred of fossil or other evidence..has ever been found to support/the scale-to-feather evolution theory.

The evidence supports Klotz’s early conclusion..that the..‘origin of feathers is still a real problem’..for Darwinism,..and all contemporary theories..of feather origin..are hypothetical ideas that..‘can only be characterized as judicious speculation’.

Although much speculation and major disagreements exist on how feathers..‘could have’..evolved,..all existing theories are..‘just-so stories’,..unsupported by fossil or historical evidence.

The profound evolutionary enigma of feathers noted by Darwin..and Heilmann..remains,..even today.

The lack of evidence for feather evolution is not only a major problem for Darwinism,..but the design and function of feathers provides evidence for both intelligent design and irreducible complexity...Flight and feathers are indeed a..‘miracle’...Feather evolution is related to the question of bird evolution.

Periodically,..new bird fossils are found,..but most of them have been of little or no use..as evidence of bird evolution,..and the few claimed examples typically generate much debate.

For instance,..Feduccia concluded that one recent find,..known as Apsaravis,..contributes little..‘..to our understanding of avian evolution,..and its lack of a clear relationship ..ith any kind of modern bird makes its significance ambiguous'.

If Apsaravis is not related to any modern ornithurine,..how can it tell us anything important about the evolutionary questions raised by [its discoverers] Norell and Clarke?’79

Conclusions on these finds will require much more study,..and yet already have produced much debate and controversy.

In conclusion,..we agree with Brush:..‘Uncountable numbers of words have been written in attempts to..reconstruct the primitive feather and explain why feathers evolved’..So far,..all of these attempts have not only failed,..

but also have led to the conclusion that how feathers..‘arose initially,..presumably from reptilian scales,..defies analysis’.