1 The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. Hence the Earth is a bit over 6000 years old.
And yet no such research is ever presented by creationists.
2 The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation. (Common ancestry within the kinds)
Creationists still don't have any genetic or morphological tests or predictions outlining which species belong to which kind, or an explanation as to why separated kinds fall into a nested hierarchy.
3 The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
And yet they still can't provide evidence for a world wide flood layer.
YEC believe there was an original Cat Kind which has diversified into the many different cats we see today, from tabby to tiger, generally by loss of genetic information as each adapted to different environments.
The problem is that it is just a religious belief and has no scientific relevance. Creationists can't measure, define, or demonstrate what information is with respect to genetics. It is just a throw away term to give the impression that they have an answer when in fact they have none.
Hybridization evidence supports the hypothesis that all cats are closely related and belong to the same kind.
The fact that you call them hybrids indicates that they are different species. Otherwise, you would just say that they are part of the population.
You can't get hybrids without speciation.
As to created kinds, it is a meaningless term because it can mean whatever you want it to mean. There are no objective criteria for determining which species belong to which kind. Even more, why can't two species share a common ancestor and be incapable of producing offspring? Creationists never explain that either.
Let's take apes as our example. Are chimps, gorillas, and orangutans in the same kind? Is the genetic distance between these species indicative of the genetic differences we should see between species of the same created kind?
They are different species, in conventional Linnaean classification, within the cat kind.
Why stop there?
Cats, dogs, seals, and bears (to name a few) are part of the Carnivora kind. We are also part of the mammal kind with other mammal species. There is also the amniote, vertebrate, and eukaryote kinds.
Of course that then raises an issue with the Biological Species concept which says a species consists of populations of organisms that can reproduce with one another and that are reproductively isolated from other populations. That would mean that if you can get a fertile hybrid then they would be part of the same species. This is part of what is known as the Species Problem.
The Species Problem is a human problem. There is no law in nature that says species must fit into black and white categories because humans want them to. The Species Problem is simply human bias.
If evolution is true then we should have the "Species Problem". Complete speciation doesn't occur in a single generation with evolution, so there should be a period of time where separate populations should still be able to produce fertile offspring.
Hybridisation chains then provide one objective criteria for mapping which species belong to which kind. However it is also possible for species within the one kind to be fully reproductively isolated.
The second sentence contradicts the first sentence.
If the links in that chain of hybridization are lost to extinction then you would have two separate kinds as determined by hybridization.
Added in edit:
I would also be curious to an answer to this question. Would you consider the genetic differences between species in the "cat kind" to be a good measure for what constitutes a kind?
You couldn't call it a Family since some Families in the current Linnaean system could contain more than one Kind.
Given your inability to define what a kind is, how could you know which species belong to which kinds?