Why do creationists INSIST that the American English Coonhound cannot exist?

I don't think any creationist suggests that breeds of single species cannot intermingle, especially with human intervention. They dispute that species can change.

Creationism has enough nonsense to mock, there is no need to invent things they do not claim.

of course till now the flood, there became a damp tropical cover surrounding the earth and all animals ate vegetables. the tyranasuarus rex ate watermelons till the sin of guy led to the international to be flooded. The dinosaurs found out they have been too enormous to get in the ark and that they rebeled. Then Jesu5 (the robotic jesus) did conflict with the dinosaurs led with the help of Lucifer and reported ashes to ashes airborne dirt and dust to airborne dirt and dust and unleashed a atomic bomb and it desintigrated each little thing... however the bones! The noah rain got here and flooded the airborne dirt and dust and bones regardless of the undeniable fact that it made fossils. Then Jesu5 observed that he had not likely defeated the dinosaurs simply by fact they might stay constantly in this variety of fossils. this is the reason he made the rainbow to promise he might by no skill back make fossils. Jesu5 then back to earth to do conflict with the behemoth and the leviathan, yet became distracted with the help of a raffle with the devil to be sure if activity might nevertheless worship the robotic king Jesu5 even whilst they took great sh*ts on him. And to on the present time the devil and Jesu5 are nevertheless taking super sh*ts on activity.

In all fairness, artificial selection such as animal husbandry isn't analogous to natural selection; the former has a definite goal while the latter does not.

Also, creationists created (pardon the pun) the distinction between 'micro' evolution and 'macro' evolution to account for exactly such developments, they'll merely claim you still only have one example of a "kind", dog kind.

Even better yet, while they might accept differing breeds within a species, many of them still have a problem with the fact the speciation, a colony of one species evolving into a completely different species, has been directly observed and documented.

Nonsense, not even YEC creationists have an issue with natural selection - which is what you describe.

Creationists challenge the formation of novel kinds (genus) due to natural selection. Two dogs producing a cat, or cow or horse etc. Something that has never been observed in nature nor experimentally. What you have is two dogs ultimately producing another dog!

They fall back on the idea of "kinds," pumpkin, and insist that for evolution to be "true," pigs have to give birth to zebras or some such silliness.

You can breed a horse with a donkey and get a mule. Do you know what you get if you try to breed a mule?

Well "breeds" aren't "species", so I don't see what it is exactly you are trying to teach them.

No, it's still a dog. Not part raccoon...And I accept evolution

I can see from your way of thinking that you come from a monkey.