Define "Kind"

There is simply no comparison between the ToE and a hypothesis of the sort you are describing. The ToE is this huge unfalsifiable imaginative fantasy. Your hypothesis is normal science, testable science. There is no comparison.

My agreeing with your odd phrasing about the Bible reading itself was no doubt being too cute and losing the possibility of real communication. I simply meant that a great deal of the Bible is easy reading, it is understandable without a great deal of interpretive sophistication. Even where it needs interpretation it is nothing like the opaque mysterious Creation to the fallen mind.

The idea that the Creation is readable at all by arrogant fallen human beings, given the history of science -- no science to speak of for millennia, very strange superstitious ideas for great periods of time, real science only very recently and that hardly foolproof -- is just about laughable.

what is laughable? if you read history from between the fall of rome and the enlightenment it is all dominated by ignorance and religious dogma, people who studied any form of science or mediceine or even writing outside what the church wanted was burned at the stake as a witch

It was the church that preserved the writings of antiquity when they were discovered.

and their condemnation of science was based on his pagan view of the cosmos, not on the Bible.

Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your [Reverence] wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith "as regards the topic," it is a matter of faith "as regards the speaker"; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles.

(1) The ignorance was the natural ignorance of the illiterate heathen peoples of Europe who took centuries to convert and civilize. Christianity was in fact the reason that ignorance was finally overcome (and the "science" of witchcraft was indeed a big part of that heathen ignorance).

(2) The first European scientists were believers.

(3) It was the church that preserved the writings of antiquity when they were discovered.

(4) The Roman Church was apostate by the time of the Reformation; and had put their trust in Aristotle (through Aquinas) rather than the Bible, and their condemnation of science was based on his pagan view of the cosmos, not on the Bible.

evo scientists don't validate something that only works if you ignore facts and give vague definitions

I don't understand what you are asking here. Your grammar is all confused. Are you asking me about the bird kind or mammal kind or a subgroup of these, or these as a subgroup of a higher group or what?

The problem is we aren't in a position to do this.

"Kinds" are a fact!!!! It is science that is ignoring facts!!!

I was wondering if there might be a 'kinds' catagory, such as in cladistic classifications? Such as a mammal kind? or a primate kind? or a bird kind?

And if there might be such a classification for those kind, what would you look for in creating it? You mentioned behavior several times, but I would think you would want to use more than just this one trait.

Then, give a good defninition of KIND. What does a 'KIND' mean. Narrow it down to a useable and testable definition.

That is the point. The definition of KIND is so ambigious that the use of the term is meanlingless.

Odd that we have 190 messages and not a single shred of factual information, but they are a fact faith?
how do you know they are a fact without any difinition of "kind"?