Creationists Cannot Define "Kind".

You stated that large and small dogs were two different kinds according to Creationism. Evolution holds that they are the same species, the only reproductive barrier being anatomical due to differing size. Since all dogs are interfertile, and since you asserted small and large dogs are separate kinds while evolution says they are the same species, the evidence supports the view of evolution. Plus many modern breeds of dog have been developed during recorded history - we know they have a common origin. The Saint Bernard and the terrier share a common ancestor from the wolf family some thousands of years ago. Many of the most dramatic differences in dog breed appearance are the result of intensive human breeding over the past 500 years - in other words, it is a very recent development.--Percy

Even worse, they don't understand the magnitude of the task before them. Even the fact that the biological definition of species (with which "kind" is, in their eyes, in competition) is fraught with ambiguity doesn't seem to raise their awareness.Creationist arguments based upon the "kind" concept are very persistent because they are both very convincing and very easy to understand. Creationists will never give them up, both because their mindset prevents them from considering the issues in sufficient detail to understand how they're wrong, and because even those who do know they're wrong understand that they are extremely effective.This is all part of a more encompassing general law that holds that effective flim-flam never goes away. This explains homeopathy, faith healing, crying statues, Jesus pizza, magnetic bracelets, chiropractics, and creationist arguments based upon "kinds".--PercyPS - Please, no posts about how a chiropractor healed your uncle's back after years of visiting the charlatans who call themselves physicians, or how your arthritis completely disappeared after wearing magnetic bracelets for just one week. Everyone knows that all you need is Geritol!