> If they say yes, they are an animal, then they must justify why they don’t act like an animal.
But humans do act like animals. Humans aren't the only animals that use tools, or communicate, or have social behaviour. Or have ethics, feelings and societal norms, even. Or, most frighteningly, they are probably not even the only animals with a sense of individual identity. Humanity just happens to be damn good at these things.
When you ask why humans don't "act like animals", you're essentially asking why humans don't have superficial similarity to animals. You fail to understand that behaviour is not just all about appearance of things - it goes deeper.
> If they say no, they aren’t an animal then they are illogical in their position because if there is no God and evolution is true then there is no reason why they wouldn’t be animals.
I don't quite follow the logic. If there is no creator and evolution is true, then humans being animals wouldn't be the only possibility. Nature is an incredibly complex system, and we have to keep refining the definitions of "life" and "sentience" all the time. We might be wondering why the heck we, as the crown of the animal kingdom, are actually mammals, and not, say, lizards? What lead us to this point? Could things have turned out different? Will some other species develop human-like consciousness millions of years from now? And why animal kingdom - wouldn't it be neat if the planet was dominated by, say, a gigantic mass of algae with a form of a group consciousness? Are such things possible?
I might as well ask another question: If humans were created to be, um, humans, why are we humans with all of the human defects? Why, specifically, was humanity the God's chosen species? Why couldn't He make us something cooler, like disembodied energy beings who weren't limited by all these pesky limitations?
