Dogs and bears have the identical body plan, just different dimensions. According to PDPrice “logic” dogs and bears must be same species.
You mean sad Creationist excuse making and running from questions you can’t answer. 
1 Like
You’re engaging in obfuscation with this. Look at the paper that Horton linked to. The ‘morphological differences’ on display there are positively minor compared to known morphological differences between the same species!
Give some examples then. For instance, do you know of any extant species that have adult individuals with bony endoskeletons and also adult individuals with largely cartilaginous endoskeletons?
2 Likes
Looping back to the OP topic of the Perspicuity of Scripture, what is a plain reading to you with regard to classifying animals? Children can recognize lions are an obvious kind, cheetahs are different, how is it that YEC thinks they are the same kind. YEC is the only tribe on the planet which get lions and cheetahs confused, so how does this elaborate YEC “kind” doctrine fit with the perspicuity of scripture. Did anybody in the entire two millennium history of the church talk about proto-cats before YEC came along?
3 Likes
When needed for obfuscation, creationists even routinely misrepresent entire phyla as species.
2 Likes
Those dogs are orders of magnitude more similar than ancient and modern coelacanths.
there are significant differences in the body shape and structure of modern and extinct coelacanth species. These include changes in the number of vertebral arches and substantial differences in skull morphology. The swim bladder of coelacanths has also changed from being filled with oil in the extinct genus Macropoma , to being ossified in modern species, suggesting that the two groups lived in very different environments.
The differences between ancient and modern are also quite visible. Ancient coelacanths are A, C, and bottom of E in the below illustration; modern are B, D, and top of E.
The fin structure comparison between ancient and modern is especially striking. Contrast that to the high similarity in the foot structure and skull structure of modern canines.
That’s why coelacanths are an order, just like primates are an order. Just as spider monkeys and Homo Sapiens are not the same species, ancient and modern coelacanths are not the same species.
A final note: your rhetorical method seems to focus on finding arguments that give a good impression, such as in displaying pictures of canines. Such arguments may work with non-scientists, but they are sure to strike out with those who have greater expertise. I strongly recommend an alternative: read the scientific literature, which will help you gain a better understanding of why consensus science has settled on a particular consensus. Even if you ultimately disagree with the consensus, you will at least be in a better position to avoid making specious arguments.
Best,
Chris
My source on coelacanths: Coelacanths are not living fossils – Ecologica
3 Likes
You can still color me unimpressed on this alleged dissimilarity, sorry.
That’s why coelacanths are an order, just like primates are an order
Let’s say I grant you this. So what? The whole order was absent from the fossil record for many millions of years prior to present, correct?
Not correct. We only know we haven’t found fossils from that time span almost certainly due to the conditions for fossilization and for fossil discovery being extremely poor. Once again you ignore all the evidence we do have and yell about a tiny gap in scientific knowledge.
2 Likes
How much expertise do you have in anatomy and physiology, Paul? Why should I trust your opinion, based on zero expertise in the relevant field of study and rendered after mere seconds (that’s how long it took for you to start typing after I posted)?
Clearly you are operating with no knowledge of the subject we are discussing, and worse, you show no propensity to give careful thought and research to it.
You have completely undermined your credibility, Paul. You could regain it, but it would take a manifest reorientation in attitude and behavior.
My $.02,
Chris
2 Likes
You don’t have to be “impressed”, just recognise that the dissimilarities are greater than between any members of a single extant species that you can think of.
4 Likes
I had already been presented with this paper earlier and had already looked at it, so you cannot go by how long it took me to type 
Clearly you are operating with no knowledge of the subject we are discussing, and worse, you show no propensity to give careful thought and research to it.
Interesting that you would assume to know how much thought or research I put into things. This is by no means the first time I’ve been around this block.
You have completely undermined your credibility, Paul. You could regain it, but it would take a manifest reorientation in attitude and behavior.
I am posting here on a forum primarily populated by old earthers and atheist skeptics. I never had any credibility here to start with, nor would I ever expect to have any among such a crowd. My arguments have never rested on any appeal to my own credibility.
You could have earned a great deal by honestly dealing with tough questions instead of running from them.
3 Likes
What have they rested on? It seems that they rest on your assumption that your understanding of scripture is correct and that its truth cannot be questioned. Therefore all contrary evidence should be rejected. That’s a valid syllogism, but a syllogism is only as correct as its premises.
2 Likes
It is not the same paper that Timothy Horton referenced, although it does reference the same underlying research.
But take a look at what you wrote about your reading of the paper Horton cited:
So I can’t say that your approach inspires confidence.
You have given an impression based on how you interact with forum participants. You have a good handle on theological issues, in my opinion. With respect to science, the story is not the same.
Actually, I greatly respect @pnelson and @Agauger , who demonstrate fluency with the science topics they choose to address. I think @colewd generally makes good points. I often disagree with them, but it is obvious from the way they speak about issues that they have taken the time to research and reflect on the scientific data.
I think you have also invested in understanding theological issues and have a good grasp of Biblical content, Paul. It shows up in your writing. I don’t know if you keep track of these things, but I have liked a few of your theologically-oriented posts.
If you would invest the same amount of effort on the science topics that you have invested in the theological topics, I think you would find the scientific discourse here on the forum to be more constructive.
My $.02,
Chris
2 Likes
It is my goal to improve my understanding of the scientific arguments, and my participation in forums like this is one of the ways I am broadening my understanding.
Do you think avoiding / ignoring all scientific topics for which you can’t C&P a pre-canned YEC excuse is helping to achieve that goal?
2 Likes
Yes, it’s certainly possible. Today, most fox species are reproductively isolated from each other due to differences in the number of chromosomes, and they aren’t even separated by millions of years
2 Likes
I’m not seeing anything of the sort, but in that spirit, let’s discuss your understanding of some data reproduced in an article you authored:
What data are graphed here? Specifically and in your own words, please.
1 Like
Co-authored with Dr. Carter. You’ve already got this line of questioning going in a different place, so keep it to one thread please.