Help in teaching 11-12 Year olds (RE (Religious Education) in the UK)

As they are also still birds, vertebrates, and so on, does this mean all vertebrates are the same "Kind"? If no, then where do you draw the line? All dogs are of the same species. Amongst other things, yes. Not as thick as this one, and that's not the only difference, Peg.

this is a good question in light of 'speciation' and im not sure what the answer isLets say, for arguments sake, that the bible account is accurate with regard to the existence of life.A Genesis 'Kind' refers to life-forms with the ability for cross-fertility within its limits. We've seen how a lion and a Tiger can reproduce, but they go no further. This would make the lion and tiger the same kind...they belong to the same family and can breed to a point. The boundary between 'kinds' then should be drawn at the point where fertilization does not occur.So when God instructed Noah to collect two of each animal together to put on the ark, it was animals according to their kinds that were collected. With the above description of kind in mind, and with the fact that there is a huge potential for great variety in one such 'kind', then Noah need only have one representative from each family group on the ark....and from them, all the cats we have today are possible thru genetics.... perhaps what you call 'speciation' This guy has a thick forebrow These guys are completely different but still the same species And the different shapes of these three are testament to just how much variety there is in the human frame

Ok, for arguments' sake. So, lions and housecats are not the same kind? Or lions and cheetahs? Just lions and tigers, as they can interbreed? Then what kind are cats,or cheetahs, or lynxes? Not really, since only lions and tigers are apparently the same kind, since they're the only ones that can interbreed. Also, are ostriches and chickesns a differnt kind, as they have no interfertility? I don't think interfertility is a very good boundary to pick. According to you, kinds are only of the same kind when they are interfertile. Most cats cannot interbreed with others, meaning most cats are a kind all of their own. Not as thick as the skull's, and like I said that isn't the only difference. That picture doesn't seem to work, so I can't comment. The only reall difference between those thre is their size, the rest of their anatomy is very similar.

no because they are all types of cats...what i'm saying is there is no reason why the two cats taken on board the ark, could not have speciated to become all the many kinds of cat we see today.leopards and juguars have been cross bred to produce whats called a Jaglion. Actually, while looking into this, i never realized just how much cross breeding has been experimented with. Here is a site with links to many hybrid cats.

So? You said that kinds are only interfertile within their own kind. Meaning that if one cat (say, a lion) cannot be interfertile with another cat (say, a comon housecat), they are not of the same kind. Or is it perhaps not the best way to determine a kind, interfertility? Or, let's look at birds, is a bird of paradise a different kind as a chicken? Then you accept evolution. Though a much much faster version of evolution then has ever been seen. Also, why would the changes stop at a certain point, as you seem to be thinking? I'll look at the site this evening, since I can't access it at this time. I'll edit my reaction in this post.

Well there are many reasons!The Flud, according to God's Big Book of Fairytales, was c. 4400 years ago so how do you explain the hyper-evolution that would have been required for the whole range of cats recorded in Egyptian records? Remember little Tiddles didn't just appear a couple of years ago.Here's another good reason, you do not have a single shred of evidence to support this hyper-evolution! Be honest, you only reject the hard scentific facts because you have read something different in an ancient book, you have no other reason at all to reject evolution (keeping in mind you just accepted a ridiculous version of it).You really need to give up this embarrassing non-stop posting of crivel that you are gleaning from ignorant creationists.Here's an idea, why no actually take a science course at a uni or a distance learning course and learn the basics?

you may have a point on that depending on what a 'species' actually is. Have we made the correct determination of what a 'species' is? I dont know.What i said earlier is that the boundary between "kinds" should be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur because in Genesis, a 'kind' was mentioned along with 'go forth and muliply'Genesis doesnt go into the details of how the muliplying would take place. It simply says they'd multiply 'according to their kinds'as far as i'm aware, the basic meaning of a "species" is a sort, a kind or a variety. But then in biologic terminology they apply a species to any group of interfertile animals that have one or more distinctive characteristics. So really, a moggy is the same species as a lion because they have one or more distinct characteristics, yes?but if we take it back to hybridization, some cats of different varieties can be hybridized, but there is a complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family...therefore apes and man cannot be from the same 'kind'. We may look similar and have similar characteristics, but those characteristics do not mean we are from the same species so the biologic terminology of what a species is cannot be 100% accurate either. it would seem that chromosomes play a role in successful reproduction.If you looked at the link re hybridized cats, they show how cats with a certain number of chromosomes are not compatible with cats of a different number. But the point is that even though they have different numbers of chromosomes, they are still cats.

a few centuries?its more like 4,000 odd years

So you go from asking why evolution is so fiercely contested to knowing exactly why? Why is it so hard to believe that a majority of the bible is simple allegory and myth? All of the rituals are stolen form other religions. Christmas? You guys don't even know when your failed messiah's birthday is. God even commands against christmas trees(Jeremiah 10). easter? Pagan.{ABE} I know you as a JW don't celebrate x-mas, but the rest of christianity does, lending more creedence to "which one of you to believe?". You only need A&E in jesus/ lineage for your myth book to be NOT allegorical. Jesus doesn't need them to be just some hippy (to which is what I subscribe to jesus being. He says some good shit in that book. Seemed like a nice guy who wanted good for the world). If A&E are not real, christianity is a sham, based on a whole lot of nothing. Sounds good to me. Now creationists need to see the light. Which is why I repeatedly ask all of you christians: which damn one of you do we "heathenous non-believers" believe in order to be saved? Hell, you guys can't even agree on the little things: what a kind is, jesus' skin color/ethnicity. This is the main reason religion should ONLY be taught in a religion class, giving equal time to ALL beliefs. And only to be taught as what other people believe, not lending creedence to one being superior to the other. And yes, the pastafarianism should be taught as well.You are on the right path Peg. You, out of all the bible thumpers here, are the closest to coming over to the dark side. Stop fighting it. I know you can see the light.

And that makes even more believable?

there is no problem there because the ancient egyptions are said to have domesticated cats around 2,000 bce...the flood came in the year 2370bce. Thats almost 400 years after the flood. And egypt was the area of land that the decendents of noahs son Ham inhabited. No Brian, animals dont need time to change...they need genetics! Genetics, along with environment, is what allows the animals to reproduce in such variety.

like i always say, dont believe any of them ...believe the bible. exactly. So any christian who believes that A&E are allegorical, they must also believe that Jesus is allegorical and therefore there is absolutely no reason to be a christian. Christianity is for those who seek salvation from sin and death...if there is no Jesus, there is no salvation. im all for learning about other religions...the Awake magazines often have detailed articles about other religions. lol, no way...there is too much to live for!

So, which "kind" of cat did they domesticate? were there numerous "kinds" of cats aboard this ark?

Right. Because it's been proven to be such a reliable source of information. Why shouldn't we be able to go to the people who spout the word of god? Oh, and....which bible????? So, you limit your learning of other religions to what your religion tells you? Surely you jest.