Hi IamJoseph,
This thread is seeking a clear and relatively unambiguous definition of kind. This definition doesn't have to be perfect. Like the biological definitions of species, there will be corner cases that are difficult to classify.
When lay evolutionists want to present the biological definition of species at a detailed level, at a level beyond just saying that it's a population of interbreeding organisms, they can go to any number of books and websites to find such definitions stated in a clear and relatively unambiguous way.
When lay creationists want to present the creationist definition of kind, even just a simple one, they're on their own. No concerted creationist effort has ever been expended on this basic prerequisite of research, defining fundamental concepts like "kind". Because of this, there is no definition of kind that lay creationists can look up by reading creationist books and pamphlets, or by watching creationist videos, or by visiting creationist websites.
So this thread is actually making several points. The obvious one is that lay creationists are ill prepared for creating a definition of kind. Another is that the Biblical concept of kind is fraught with problems.
But the most significant point this thread makes is that even premier creation scientists like Morris and Gish and Austin and Wells and so forth haven't bothered to define kind. This is because creationism isn't a research effort, but a character assassination effort directed against evolution. With no research arrows in the quill yet nonetheless spurred on by creationist books, videos and websites, lay creationists march into battle unarmed. Threads like this are the result.
--Percy