Defining different kinds of creatures are expressed through visual design information and by the creatures genetic blueprint expressed within its chromosome bundles
Hrm, nice attempt, but the definition is non-functional. For instance what is "visual design information", and how is it classified and measured?
Your definition is also self-contradictory. Visual design criteria and genetic evidence don't always agree, so which is to be taken as more important?
Canis lupis and
Thylacinus cynocephalus are strikingly similar
visually but vastly different genetically. Are they in the same kind, or not?
The problem for this definition ultimately is that the genetic evidence for almost
all organisms points to common descent.
By your own definition all living things are in the same "kind", so you've essentially proven evolution, not creation, with this definition.
No $5 for you, I'm afraid. Your definition is nonfunctional and contradictory.
When God created man, molded our face, to be in his image, gave us special abilities, to beable to subdue the earth
What about my face allows me to subdue the Earth? And what about the human face is unique, exactly? Have you ever seen young chimpanzees or ourangutans at the zoo? Very human-looking indeed.
There's just not that much difference in between organisms. That's why it's so easy to construct evolutionary trees, and so hard to find these supposed barriers that creationists "just know" are there.