What "kind" are penguins?

Part of the ongoing problem that scientists are having with the terminology used by the ID/Creationists is this idea that animals were created in "kind".But I have yet to hear a really concrete definition of "kind".So, I propose that we look at a specific group of animals - the penguins - and figure out where they fit.Are penguins of the "kind" bird? If so, why? If not, why? Is "Penguin" a kind? If so, is "Turkey" a kind?What the thought process, if any, involved in Creationist classification?

Let's completely set aside pre-flood/post-flood issues for this topic. Let's assume we are simply trying to classify animals as we see them today.How do we determine what is a "kind" by today determining?Are all birds a kind?
Are eagles, hawks and falcons a kind, and doves, pigeons and chickens a different kind?
Are all warm blooded animals a kind?
Are slugs and snails a kind? Or are snails and hermet crabs a kind (since they both live in snail shells)?What do creationists/IDrs actually mean when they say kind? I'm not even asking for a definition, though that would certainly make life easier. I just want some concrete examples of what would fit into a particular kind or wouldn't fit and why.Think about it this way. If we suddenly discovered under the ice in Antartica a whole new animal - how would we determine if this animal was related to other animals we know today?

Okay, then how do we know if an animal is an original animal or a not?Let's say we're teaching this in a biology class - I'm giving a test. How do students sort it out?

It seems like neither you nor I have a solid understanding of what people mean by "kind".If all the Creationists/IDrs are merely guessing at animal classification, why are they even asking to be considered for education?It seems to me that if a group wants it possition considered seriously, they should maybe develop the idea to the point where their own supporters understand the system.I mean, if I was pushing a new type of math but couldn't sort out even and odd numbers, should people still "teach the contraversy"?

Ahh, but why?I agree that penguins are birds. I don't think that's in debate. What I'm trying to suss out is the thought process that leads to that conclusion.Here's an example of the thought process that leads AWAY from that conclusion --Birds fly, penguins do not fly - they swim under the water.
Birds nest in trees, penguins live where there are no tress.
Birds have feathers, penguins appear to have fur.
Seals have fur.
Seals swim under the water.
Seals eat fish.
Penguins are seals.Not saying that that argument is valid or even well thought out. And further, I don't agree with it. However, you can look at it and see what I am thinking and why.So, what makes a penguin a bird?

I see I didn't read down far enough. Okay, good. Basically what you're saying is "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck - it's a duck."So, the "bird" kind would include things with--
-feathers
-beaks
-claw'd feet
-bird soundsNow, we can't really use "bird sounds" to classify birds, for a number of reasons - the first being that you can't use a word in it's own definition. (ie. "Chocolate is anything which tastes like chocolate" is not an effective way to define chocolate.)Now, I think we can assume that beaks, claws and feathers have to work together, since turtles have both beaks and claws, but not feathers. and Badgers have claws but neither beaks nor feathers.Seems like "feathers" is the only uniquely bird characteristic.So would you say, all feathered animals are birds? Or do we want to stick with all feathers+beaks+claws = birds.Additionally, good job pointing out the bats are not birds, thus ruling out the obviously flawed argument "birds fly", since clearly many things fly which are not birds.I think we are making good progress here

Yes, but not "unanswerable questions".I think it's a big cop out to simply say that you can't describe the animals in the world, and won't even try.What vowels were original vowels? Can we teach English in school?
What numbers were original numbers? Can we teach Math in school?I mean, from what you are saying, Noah could have taken 2 of every animal - and only had 6 animals with him total.2 original members of the "small kind"
2 original members of the "medium kind"
2 original members of the "large kind"How is this useful to our understanding?

Faith, I'm not asking you to say -- there was an original kind of dog called a "Mo-Dog" and it looked like this, and had these characteristics, etc. etc.I fully understand that you can't demonstrate what animals were originally created.My problem is that you can't even define what "kinds" of animals were originally created. You can't even say, "okay, there were beasts of the land, beasts of the air and beasts of the sea."I believe the reason you can't do this is that you are too self aware. You know that as soon as you say, "one kind was beasts of the land", the next question will be - is a penguin a beast of the land or of the sea? Is it therefore not a beast of the air - like all the other birds?When you build an arguement in fact, you have fact to fall back on.
When you build an arguement in the belief that everything is unknowable, you have nothing to fall back on buy your lack of knowledge.

You are correct in that the central question here is basically this--Can any creationist explain what they mean when they say "kind"?Unfortunately, Faith has basically owned up to the fact that they can not, since no creationist actually knows what's said in the Bible, just that whatever is being said must be true.It seems the argument breaks down simply to this -"The Bible says that there were animals, therefore there were animals. We don't have any idea what those animals were, or what they looked like. But we do know this -- Anyone ELSE who has an idea about what they were or what they looked like must be wrong because only we can be right and we've already decided we don't know."Doesn't seem like a very well thought out arguement, unfortunately. I was sort of hoping for some clarity on the issue. Sadly, it seems, every time we ask for more clarity, they just try to make the water murkier.Cognative dissodence, anyone?

Maybe I'm totally wrong, but it seems like this is what you've said so far:"We know that there were animals before the flood. However we don't know what those animals were. We do, however, know that there were different kinds of animals."That's perfectly fine. Where we get into trouble, is when we ask:"What do you mean, "different kinds of animals"?"This is where the Creationist/ID view point kind of falls apart.How can you know that there are different kinds of animals if you don't know what constitutes a "kind" or what animals there were to begin with? Or even better, how many different "kinds" of animals were there?It's your theory. You get to make it all up. All we're asking you to do is put in a little more time and imagination and come up with the numbers and a reason why you picked those numbers over some other number.