Which is funny, because a lot of these same people think that modern species came from a bunch of "kinds" created just a few thousand years ago. What they're proposing is evolution on steroids. And then they turn around and say that regular evolution couldn't possibly work because evolution can't generate large changes, a lie so obviously false that not even the people saying it actually believe it.
Pretty much, yeah. The reason they present to refute macro-evolution is to implicitly assume macro-evolution on a scale even faster than the one they already reject as being not long enough to bring about major changes that can't happen anyway.
I don't suppose there's any fossil evidence for their "kinds". Or, it being only a few thousand years ago, any bones -- which can't be carbon dated because they reject carbon dating as evidence. Maybe a creationist "archaeologist" could find Noah's Ark?
Oh, wait. Genesis didn't say anything about kinds, it said animals, described more or less as the modern ones with which we are familiar, all the way back to chapter 1. So the theory of kinds isn't in accord with their own text.
Yup. Accepting the theory of "kinds" means rejecting biblical literality.
Color me amused but not surprised.