my argument was still valid since I stated it as simply an example of a living fossil.
The problem is that there are certain key phrases that show up from time to time on the tips of the tongues of Creationists.
Here are a few:
"If people came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
"If the Earth is so old, why aren't we completely buried in fossils?"
"It's just a theory"
Here's one that's a little less common:
"If things evolve, then how come there ceolocanth hasn't evolved"
When you refer to it as a "living fossil", you need to understand that that is not a scientific term but rather a magazine title term.
The coelocanth is obviously not a "living fossil" in the sense that it is a living fish, not a mineralized impression of a fish which is somehow magically alive.
It's likewise not a "living fossil" in the sense that it is not the same species, or frankly family, as the fish found in fossils. It's a descendant just like many other fishes. It's just that this descendant has a number of physical characteristics which were more common in the past and have generally disappeared in modern day.
However, if you meant "living fossil" in the sense that "Hey, here's something which is alive which still looks kinda like this thing in the fossil record" (unlike say T-Rex or triceratops, etc) then sure. It's a "living fossil" in that narrow sense.