[Dimensio]

His logic is faulty because it implies there is an intrinsic conflict between being an animal in the biological sense and not being one in the religious sense.

So you are suggesting that he is employing a false equivocation. That does appear to be likely, given previous experience with that claim in creationist discussions.

[curiosity]

This discussion really takes me back.

That "animal" has at least two different meanings is one of the first things I learned in school. I remember that day in Kindergarden like it was yesterday.

During class, I cusually referred to people as a kind of animal. Some other kid said, "No people aren't animals!" The teacher then stepped in and said, "You're both right! Can anyone tell me why?" I think that was perhaps the first paradox I ever had to resolve.