Creationists Cannot Define "Kind".

Okay, Budikka, I CAN define Kind. The Bible says, in Genesis chapter 1, that each animal will bring forth after their Kind. Get that?--they will BRING FORTH after their kind. so it's quite simple: if two different animal species can "BRING FORTH" new offspring (like a coyote and a wolf could) then they are the same basic kind. A cat and a coyote are not the same kind, and we can tell that because you cannot cross-breed a cat with a coyote. so, according to the Bible, "Kind" is specifically defined in terms of whether or not they can bring forth offspring together.

Interesting enough, there is a little disagreement between some of the creationists on the 'kind' debate. i personally believe that there was more than one single cat on the ark (maybe two or three 'kinds' that have branched out between the larger and smaller species and subspecies). Well, Dr. Kent Hovind (i know a lot of people disagree with him on some things but he is a very educated man) seems to put one single dog as the ancestor for all the dog species. Dr. Ken Ham has EACH species on the ark (maybe some species branched off, like between the white tiger of India and the Siberian orange tiger). Well, i would tend to say that maybe all the larger dogs (huskies, retrievers, labs, german sheppards...) probably have been cross-bred and varied from one or two ancestral 'kinds' as found on the ark. Then the smaller ones (terriers and poodles) adapted and bred from a different pair of dogs found on the ark, but certainly the chua'a and the st. bernard are not of common descent, as indicated by evolution theory.
I'm not saying that this theory is 100% provable, and I'm not saying that I AM right, but I think that this aspect should be looked into by some of the creationists out there.In Christ,
Booboo

I already knew about larger and smaller dogs becoming interfertile (but they would not do that without the "artificial insemination technique") I love animals (i've already had 4 cats, dogs, a dwarf rabbit, an iguana, and a cockatiel) but larger and smaller dogs being able to reproduce together does not support the evolution theory.Besides, the larger and smaller animals still need "help" with their breeding. You can't expect me to believe that, thousands of years ago, a st. bernard ancestor and a terrier ancestor made the first 'batch' of a modern species of dog on their own.Also, 'kind' is defined as whether or not they can reproduce. if they can bring forth offspring on their own, without any 'help' then they are the same kind of animal. I once saw a first-grader taking a test--the teacher asked "which kind does not belong with the others?" In front of the child was (a) a dog (b) a wolf (c) a coyote (d) a banana. Being only 5 or 6 years old, the kid was smart enough to guess the right answer--even if the banana had been replaced by a cat, there is no doubt in my mind that the kid still would have answered the question right.
Besides, it is not totally uncommon for a wolf and a dog to crossbreed on their own.In Christ,
Booboo