Please see number 5, which is my conclusion, not number 2, which is not my conclusion, but a premise. If you disagree with that premise, please furnish me the name of said person who was born to non human parents. And test tube babies don't count, nor would human clones if there were any, being that the point of origin in either case would still be human vice non-human.
yeah, it is right
Dear BS:
I shall attempt to clarify my earlier comments. Your last two statements (conclusions, really) were these:
4. Therefore, man did not evolve and evolution is not true.Now please consider what it means to say that man didn't evolve. It means that man did not develop from pre-human ancestors, but instead, he miraculously appeared fully formed, with no non-human ancestry. We're clear on that, right? And it's what you claimed to prove, right?
5. Therefore, Creationism is true.
Okay, moving along ... Earlier in your list of statements (which list purports to be a "syllogism," should you be interested), you claimed as a fact: "2. No human now living or who has ever lived, was ever born of non human parents."
But don't you see, my dear BS, that your statement #2, which you are using as a "fact" to help you prove your statements #4 and #5, is the very thing you are trying to prove. In other words, you are saying: "Man did not evolve because man did not evolve." An argument cast in such a form is logically invalid.
Your suggestion that I provide you with the name of the first human to evolve is, I assume, an attempt at humor. In any event, if you claim as fact that man had no pre-human ancestors, it is a genuinely uphill struggle that you have selected for yourself. You will need to explain away such readily verifiable evidence as this: Welcome to the Hall of Human Ancestors.
You may have been copying something you saw at a creationist website, without giving it all that much thought, so I am pleased to be able to help you see how unreliable such sources can be.