We don't.
You don't get to keep making statments about things that you know absolutely nothing about.
and then we have this little twist:
Robert Byers writes:
For example I myself have no problem seeing bears and dogs as all from the same one that came off the Ark. I was impressed by how similiar the bear is to the dog and in the fossil record (post flood as I see it or post cret/ter line for you) how phrases like bear-dog were used and other examples of overlap.
and now:
Robert Byers writes:
I'm not 100% sure dogs/bears are the same.
This is a very common creationist bit of behaviour. That is why we ask for a definition of kind and some concrete examples. If (and that's a big if) they are given as soon as one doesn't like the outcome the definition starts to shift around.
Another thing you don't know is just what a "kind" is. And you won't find a safe, useful definition from creationist sources.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-30-2004 05:00 PM