Jennica - are you not reading my posts? You asked for some questions answered, and if you read my post #221, that came straight from the Whitcomb book, which I referenced.
I don't know what your hangup with the word 'kind' is - call it whatever you want: group, family, genus, kind, whatever. It is pretty self-explanatory (and common sense) that a 'kind' of dog has different 'breeds' or 'species' within it that are not part of the cat kind, or the horse kind, or the lizard kind, etc. etc. and these 'kinds' NEVER transform from one into another.
Now, if you just simply choose - obstinately - not even to entertain the idea that the Flood was indeed a global event, I cannot change your stubborn refusal. This would indicate to me that you have never read any of the many books that discuss the overwhelming geological and physical evidence of the global flood. At least I know what it's like to be on the other side and be an unbeliever and had spent my entire undergrad career being indoctrinated with the 'facts' of evolution.
So then I asked you a few questions based on the theory you seemed to be arguing for, and then you came back with post #221 which suddenly changed your argument to say that ALL of the different species were represented on the ark. If this is what you thought all along, why did you put so much energy into debating what evolution means, and evolution within kinds, or accross kinds, and breeds and species, etc.? Why not just say from the outset, "I think all of the animals did fit into the ark, and here is why..."
So yes, I am reading your posts and