Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood.

'Yes' on the first statement, 'No' on the second.I have a problem with your inability to define "kind." You continue to use "kind" as an intregal part of your arguments, yet your use of it is so ambiguous that it renders many of your statements pointless.In another thread I joked that if we consider all life as part of a single "kind," then evolutionists and literalists would get along much better.Considering your lumping of marsupials and placentals into a single kind (since they are "just a condition of reproduction"), you are getting closer to such an extreme.If the complex differences in reproductive systems don't serve to divide kinds, what does? The outward appearance of an organism? That's grade-school logic at work - it would likely state that all furry four-limbed animals are of the same kind. And what exactly do you base this conclusion upon?

Do you have any evidence (or even a creationist website for that matter) that states marsupials and placentals are grouped into the same "kind" based on outward appearance? or is this solely based on your "first instinct"?

Not surprising to see you make more assertions with no foundation in reality...Why are parent/child relationships a "special case" for DNA such that DNA-based methodology does not extend to any other aspects of biology?Would you accept that grandparent-grandchild relationships could be analyzed using DNA-based techniques?