[Kalamata]

There are plenty of scientifically rigid definitions of species—you can look it up yourself.
***************************************************
I suspected you would punt on that question.

****************
Can you describe the scientific rigor that underlies your definition of “kind”?
***************************************************

I did, but it went right over your head. Let me try another way:

Real scientists have long known by way of scientifically repeatable observations (e.g., via real science) that animals were biologically restrained within their respective kinds by some type of internal barrier. We now know that barrier is genetic, and the “cut-off” point in the taxonomic hierachy is probably the “family”, that is, the biblical “kind” is within the ball park of the secular “family”.

Mr. Kalamata

[bwest]

It's sad that you don't recognize your definition of "kind" as a textbook example of the logical fallacy known as begging the question.

The ToE and Christian faith coexist perfectly. It is not blasphemous to fully subscribe to a divinely created universe, yet recognize that that which our senses perceive is merely the part that God chooses to reveal. We can study that part, measure it, theorize about it, and learn not only about what we see, but about God himself.

Blind adherence to creationism in the face of real scientific observation is rationalization, not science. It is practiced by those of weak faith.

God gave us the capacity to learn. We should use it.