"Kein" could have a similar meaning in German, but only if it's emphasised (e.g. in speech). In your example, saying "Das ist kein Schiff!" would be possible in German as well, at least in my opinion. "Das ist nicht ein Schiff, sondern (etwas anderes)." would also be possible (only with a contrast though), but it sounds more matter-of-factly to me. E.g. in Star Wars, when Ben / Obi-Wan Kenobi says "That's no moon.", that's translated to "Das ist kein Mond." in the German version. But as Delta1212 pointed out, it is also the normal way to negate a phrase like this.
I did think the voice as it came out put the stress on the kein, so I interpreted it as 'that is no meat' - could be due to limitations in the voice synthesizing, but I do think in this case 'no meat' is better translation of what was said. If I had read it only, I'd have put 'not meat' though.
"Kein" is often (but not always) equivalent to "nicht ein" in German, because the two expressions are etymologically related. However, it is hard to find a single word or expression in English that functions exactly the same way as "kein" does in German. "No" might come close, but in sentences like these you would normally just use "not". Additionally, "That is not a meat." sounds wrong because "meat" is usually uncountable (at least I would understand it as being used as an uncountable noun here).
Only in some special cases in the right context, not if you just want to express the general meaning of "That is not (no) meat.". "Das ist nicht Fleisch." sounds somewhat similar to how "That is not-meat." would sound in English, but without the proper context it just isn't natural.
I just got marked wrong for giving the same answer. "That does not eat meat" is a coherent sentence, so I don't see any reason why the German homophone should be considered objectively wrong in this context.
(Again, this is only in reference to the transcription-from-audio exercise and is not relevant to any discussion of the translation-from-text versions for the same sentence.)