Re: Ken Ham

From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 16:46:50 EST

  • Next message: allenroy: "Re: Barne's Magnetic Data"

    >>I think I've been on the ASA list for about 7 years now & this has got to
    >>be the
    funniest "argument" I've yet seen posted on it.
    >>

    Second funniest, I'd claim. I've (thankfully) forgotten the name but I still
    remember the SPOG guy from a couple of years ago.

    Burgy

    www.burgy.50megs.com

    >From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
    >To: RFaussette@aol.com
    >CC: burgythree@hotmail.com, asa@calvin.edu
    >Subject: Re: Ken Ham
    >Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:57:58 -0500
    >
    >RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
    > > I don't think you do, but if you have children don't you want
    > > them to rise to the top in their generation? Hint: people who don't
    >maintain
    > > the prohibitions are Jerry Springer guests.
    >
    >I think I've been on the ASA list for about 7 years now & this has got to
    >be the
    >funniest "argument" I've yet seen posted on it.
    >
    > > Decisions on homosexuality can be made on the basis of reproductive
    >success.
    > > Homosexuals don't breed and their kind don't survive. Religion is the
    >tool of
    > > survival par excellence and so must naturally come down against
    > > homosexuality. On that basis alone... YES
    >
    >The notion that homosexuality must have negative survival value because
    >"their kind"
    >don't breed is quite naive. It has long been known that it may be
    >advantageous for the
    >survival & propagation of a certain gene pool for some members to sacrifice
    >themselves -
    >by dying to protect the community or otherwise forgoing breeding
    >opportunities - for the
    >benefit of close relatives. Sterile castes of termites, bees &c, can
    >contribute to the
    >survival of their relatives & thus further the survival of "their" genes.
    >Whether or
    >not homosexuals can &/or do contribute to the survival & propagation of
    >related
    >genotypes (siblings, cousins &c) can certainly be debated, but the question
    >can't be
    >decided just on the basis of whether or not they themselves breed.
    >
    > Shalom,
    > George
    >
    >
    >George L. Murphy
    >gmurphy@raex.com
    >http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

    _________________________________________________________________
    Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 19 2003 - 16:46:59 EST