[BroJoeK]

OneWingedShark: "The main problem, as I see it, is that evolution is violation of God creating things and declaring they reproduce 'after its own kind.' "

First of all, "kind" is not a scientific classification, nor can anyone, anywhere define precisely what a "kind" is.
Therefore the word "kind" is meaningless.

Second, except potentially in cases of viable hybrids (i.e., "groler-bears"), no parent ever gave birth to another "species".
What happens instead is that every generation is slightly different from its parents and so over many generations -- thousands, millions -- these changes accumulate to the point where scientists can distinguish separate species, genera, families, etc.

So, it turns out -- however you wish to define "kind", every species does reproduce its own "kind", but every child is slightly changed from its parents, hence: evolution.

[OneWingedShark]

OneWingedShark: "The main problem, as I see it, is that evolution is violation of God creating things and declaring they reproduce 'after its own kind.' "

First of all, "kind" is not a scientific classification, nor can anyone, anywhere define precisely what a "kind" is.
Therefore the word "kind" is meaningless.

Second, except potentially in cases of viable hybrids (i.e., "groler-bears"), no parent ever gave birth to another "species". What happens instead is that every generation is slightly different from its parents and so over many generations -- thousands, millions -- these changes accumulate to the point where scientists can distinguish separate species, genera, families, etc.

So, it turns out -- however you wish to define "kind", every species does reproduce its own "kind", but every child is slightly changed from its parents, hence: evolution.

Of course 'kind' has meaning: mankind, for instance. Or, an illustration Jesus gave: an olive branch doesn't bear figs, but olives.
Even in the pure science, mathematics, there's a whole field dealing with the properties of 'kinds' of numbers: number theory; your argument is akin to saying that because there's only one number 3 there's no such thing as 'integer'.