Fair enough. One person’s free association is another’s claim to a logically connected series of premises, I suppose.
Although each premise is doubtful on its own, IMHO as I stated (way) upthread for the first and second paragraphs of your post
As for the third paragraph, unless I missed some other definition upthread, ‘human’ as in “human animal” is based on a biological species definition. But I do agree that ‘persons’ would not be. Although why we need Genesis to do philosophical analysis of the concept of persons is, unsurprisingly, beyond my understanding of reasonableness and so seems to be another free association to me
.
But its good we agree on the entertainment value, regardless.