More phony stories from the liberal media promoting interspecies mating as a vehicle toward their pro-evolution, pro-secular agenda. I know it's not possible to mate polar bears with grizzlies because the way I interpret the bible, it would be impossible. And so I wish to use the force of law to suppress stories of this nature; and teach our children the bible, only the bible, and nothing but the bible. That is all.
If you search long enough you may find somebody in a remote cabin that would fit your (unspoken) profile of a narrow-minded, ignorant, unloving Bible-thumper. But take some snacks with you. I believe you will get hungry before your search is over.
"I know it's not possible to mate polar bears with grizzlies because the way I interpret the bible, it would be impossible."
In your absurd efforts to put others down you missed the most glaringly obvious point: It's still a bear.
BTW, next time at least say something that makes sense. Two bears mating doesn't go against the Bible at all.
Sorry to interrupt you while you are making a fool of yourself. But I thought I would help you by posting what Darwinian dumbasses have really said, instead of what fictional creationist straw men might say. Interbreeding by subspecies or interspecies variations to produce different "breeds" of dogs, for instance, or this Grizzly/Polar Bear hookup have never bothered creationists. We're not the airheads who believe reptiles evolved into birds or vice versa.
In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale. [Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, original edition, 1859]
Scientists now know that Darwin had the right idea but the wrong animal: instead of looking at bears, he should have instead been looking at cows... Behind the Controversy: How Evolution Works, By Ker Than, LiveScience, 2005]
From the idiotic to the evil, Darwinism was and is a blot on true science.
Darwin spoke of the "gorilla" and the "Negro" [sic] as occupying evolutionary positions between the "Baboon" and the "civilized races of man" ("Caucasian"); viz: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla. [Darwin] Thomas Huxley wrote: "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successively with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." (Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, 1871)
The Bible does not even use the word "race" in reference to people, but does describe all human beings as being of "one blood" (Acts 17:26)
That may be the most uninformed statement about the Bible I've seen on this board. Learn what the biblical term "kind" means.