[mlc9852]

You may need to do a little additional research before labeling all creationists as providing no definition of something.

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/micromacroprnt.htm

Whether or not you are in agreement isn't the point.

[crail]

From your article, (half way down)

I’ll admit that it is partially true that creationists don’t have a definite definition of what a kind is, but this shouldn't be cause for concern. Evolutionists don’t have a definite definition on what a species is either

But evolutionists have working definitions, some of which I gave. These definitions are valuable. Beyond that species boundaries are gray when you consider evolution. By the nature of evolution they are a man-made construct. Creationists have *no* definition and use the fact that there are many competing definitions, and lively discussion, in evolution to defend the fact that they have none. (By their own admission.) Some will try to attach the interbreeding bit to their definition, but they abandon it when it suits them.