Heresy within Christianity

[Yehren]

You haven't yet give us any reason to believe that the high levels of achievement of U.S. students on these international test are due to cheating. What do you have? Checkable source would be important.

One would think that if American students were cheating in large numbers in public school, their achievement levels on international tests would be lower, not higher. After all, cheating would indicate less learning, not more.
How do you explain that?

It is not routine to do IQ testing in schools.

Achievement testing is not IQ testing.

A class in history, science, math etc. ARE typical and per that individual Topic... large numbers of Students CHEAT...their CHEATING grade recorded...their CHEATING collective Grades Analized as Compared to other nations.... and whoop, whoop...the CHEATERS ARE of course, often found Higher Ranked...

And you've still failed to show us that they cheat on these international achievement tests. What do you have to show that? You do realize that it's much harder to cheat on such tests than to cheat on daily work or unit tests, do you not?

Pretty much all you have is your belief that somehow all of this is due to cheating. But no data to support any of it.

 

[Yehren]

As far back as the early 90s, schools in Georgia were requiring that parents supply the Social Security number in order to enroll their students. I personally fought them on this.

It's one thing to have the student's SSAN; it's quite another to use it as the student's ID number. Can you show us where public schools provide the federal government with individual student testing scores by SSAN?

 

[Yehren]

LOL, were you in elementary school when George W. Bush was president??

Truman, actually.

The original ESEA was passed under LBJ in 1965. I'm talking about Bush's reauthorization of the ESEA called the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). I have a copy of this lengthy law, and I quoted part of Title 1 from it. As I stated above, prior to the NCLB, federal law did not require that assessments produce individual student data.

There would be no point in assessments if there was no individual student data. When I was in elementary school, assessments produced individual student data. The state agency provided it to parents and the school. I'm asking you for your evidence that individual student assessment data is being provided to the federal government.

Now, this is required for all States that receive funds through the federal ESEA, now called the ESSA, and ALL States receive this funding.

And now all you need to do is document that claim. A checkable source would be good.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Taken]

As far back as the 90s, schools in Georgia were requiring that parents supply the Social Security number in order to enroll their students. I personally fought them on this.

Schools absolutely DO require SS numbers for a enrollment to public schools.
I also fought that...and refused. For that situation...which also often applies to foreigners and illegals...the School will, usually without the parents convent or knowledge issue the child "on his records", a "state ID number"
The purpose of either number is for the Independent (rolling with laughter), to "Depend" on the States and Feds to Give them $$$$$ to the Independent (LOL) school Districts.

And also why, the schools are willing to practically, wake, dress, feed, and Transport children to School and Count them "present",
Because any student NOT present...the $$$$ of the govt funds are "reduced" each day of absence.

It's engineered "welfare", and WHY, the Feds and States have Control over Curriculums and corrupt Teaching book selections, with express Liberal views.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Yehren]

Schools absolutely DO require SS numbers for a enrollment to public schools.

Could you document a case wherein student SSANs are used as student ID numbers? I can't find a district that does it.

And of course, we're still not getting any evidence that states or school districts report individual student achievement data to the federal government.

 

[Grailhunter]

Could you document a case wherein student SSANs are used as student ID numbers? I can't find a district that does it.

And of course, we're still not getting any evidence that states or school districts report individual student achievement data to the federal government.

I am not sure how interested you are in this, but people laying stuff in your lap is not going to mean anything to ya.
You need to do some of the work on your own.
The school grades, you say that they may need improvement....I find it appalling with no legitimate excuse for it. It is sickening how far behind we are after billions spent supposedly to improve education.
The data mining and transfer to central location that can be accessed by third party interests and distributed to at will.
This constitute legalized identity theft of children and young adults.
And all this...the grades and identity theft is the "spitting on the sidewalk" offenses.....not even addressing the serious offenses yet. Again, you are not going to believe any of it until you get interested and look into it yourself.
It easy to deny or assign people homework to be delivered to you, just for you to deny. The old timers call 'em mug-wumps or bumps on log....get up and do something.

 

[Taken]

It's one thing to have the student's SSAN; it's quite another to use it as the student's ID number. Can you show us where public schools provide the federal government with individual student testing scores by SSAN?

You need to do your own homework.
Ask a School Office.
Read current School Books.
Compare those books to historical school books on the same topic.
Research the authors of current school books.
Order Congressional Records and read them, to know what your government does in session.

 

[Taken]

Could you document a case wherein student SSANs are used as student ID numbers? I can't find a district that does it.

And of course, we're still not getting any evidence that states or school districts report individual student achievement data to the federal government.

What is a SSAN?
I was speaking of a SS.

 

[Taken]

You don't seem to know what "evolve" means.

Try a dictionary and compare my answer to that.

Darwin used it only once in his book.

I already mentioned Darwins Titled THEORY.
Regardless of His Theory on species, He is credited with the Theory on the evolution of man.

It means "change."

I can't understand for you.

No.

Get a dictionary.


I don't blame you for failing to understand; teacher does not mean the brightest crayon in the box and often fail at comprehension.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Hit the nail on the head!

KIND

God Created KINDS if things.

Every KIND of thing EVOLVES, according to the true meaning of EVOLVE, (which is simply a development of "A KIND" of thing into a more complex form.)

Man Begins as a Seed, and Developes into a baby, a child, an adult, (maybe receives a Quickened spirit, maybe not), still a man KIND of Thing.

Same with animals.

Same with plants.

Man-KIND

Men Mixing ONE KIND of Seed with another KIND of Seed...is a Fail.
Men will never become Animals or Plants.
Animals will never become Man or Plants.
Plants will never become Man or Animals.

God Divided Men.
(Hebrews/Gentile's...Tribes/ Gentile's)
Men have Mixed themselves.
(The result, is they become neither Jew or Gentile)
God has a PLAN;
To further Divide Man.
First Dividing Israel...
Those believing IN God & the Messiah.
Those believing IN God and Christ Jesus their Messiah.
Division from unbelievers.
Second Dividing Gentile's...
Believers IN God, IN God & Christ Jesus the Messiah.
To Mix ISRAEL (Tribes) & Gentiles, and they become Neither (ISRAEL or Gentiles)...
Division from unbelievers.
Point IS: the EVOLVING development DOES NOT CHANGE the Man, into something other than a Man.
Israel does Not BECOME Gentile's.
Gentile's Do NOT BECOME Israel.
They Each Remain Men, with AN EVOLVED "STATUS";
1) EVOLVED (developed) from children OF God,
to "sons of God"
2) EVOLVED (developed) from ISRAEL and Gentiles, to "saints".

Animals - KIND

Land beasts, Sea, Air.
Require Air, cloven hoof, chew cud, birth live, lay eggs...KINDS of animals are taught in Scripture. "Species" EVOLVE (develop), when two of the same KIND of animals BREED, and produce an offspring, a new species of the Same KIND of animal.

(WHICH by the way, lends Flood deniers to a misunderstanding of HOW Noah got Every KIND of animal into the Ark!
First, KINDS of animals were taken aboard the Ark...NOT every species! Which amounted to a couple hundred, not thousands of animals.)

Plants -
Cross pollinate, become a new species, not a new KIND.

In Brief:
Darwin wrote about his THEORY on the "Origin of SPECIES"...(dubbed as the Eveloution of Man).
Some Scientists run with the Theory: making acknowledgements between Similar Characteristics of Man AND Animals.
Further Scientific studies with the introduction of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid ), a complex molecule, required for reproduction, furthers the Science studies...of Finding Similar/Same DNA molecules in Man and Animals.

(STOP THE PRESSES!!!)
"Man and Animals must be of the "SAME" Species..."SAME" KIND of thing, one "EVOLVING" from the "other"" <--- LOL!


Man AND Animals CAME FROM THE SAME ONE CREATED (existing) Earth...
The Same Dust, Elements, Minerals IN the Earth, are IN the Bodies of Man and Animals!
The Same Elements, Minerals IN the Earth "Sustain" (developed and keep alive) both Man an Animals...while Each Remains a Completely different KIND of thing, with Similar "Characteristics". ( which probably has a little something to do with they each (man and animals, not plants) have Gods Breath of LIFE / soul... (sarcasm)... for the unbelieving Scientist! )

Yes... Every living man-KIND and Animal-KIND of thing Naturally EVOLVES (from immature to a mature complex form)...
Animals can produce an offspring of another Species.
Man-KIND does NOT reproduce an other species.

A Natural MAN can become A Spiritual MAN...
Only BY the Power of God planting HIS SEED in a man's natural spirit, in a man's new heart. (A New Heart; Also EFFECTED / Given a man as a gift from God). And the THING...is Still a MAN-KIND of thing.

In summary, Man-KIND, can not, does not EVOLVE into Another "species or KIND" of thing, by Nature or Man's Scientific efforts, or Even BY God...it is Still a man-Kind of thing.

Glory to God,
Taken

So! You are the same kind as a banana! Right! I get it!

I think that you are using the word "evolution" in a different way to what standard evolutionists use it.

Here is the dictionary meaning:
evolution
/ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(ə)n,ˈɛvəluːʃ(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
   synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
   "early ecologists were not interested in evolution"
   
   
2. 2.
   the gradual development of something.
   "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
   synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding.

The way you are using the word fits more into definition 2.2 than 1.1. If so, then I agree with you.
Here is the biological definition:
Evolution (evo‧lu‧tion, ˈɛvəluːʃ(ə)n) is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations. Natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation could bring about evolution. It may also pertain to a sequence of events depicting the development of a species or of a group of related organisms.

But when we look at the following picture, which describes the evolution of man as believed, we see a transition from an ape, which is an animal with a different genetic structure, to a human being. When I debate against evolution, this is the type of evolution that I believe is a fairy tale:


It is a genetic fact that changes with in a kind involves a loss of genetic code through mutation. This means that a dark, brown haired person changes into a blue eyed blonde because the dark brown gene is gone and the blue eyed blonde gene remains because the blue eyed gene is dominant. Two blue eyed gene people will produce blue eyed offspring, but not brown eyed because the brown eyed gene is missing from the two blue eyed parents.

But for an ape to develop by mutation into a human being, genetic material has to be added for the ape to develop into a higher type of being. This is the same as saying that two blue-eyed parents obtains a brown-eyed gene which they don't have, to produce brown-eyed offspring. According to genetic theory this is impossible. Therefore for a human offspring to occur from an ape, the ape has to have the same genetic codes as the human, which it doesn't. It needs more genetic material to be added. This is why it is impossible, even over millions of years, for an ape to develop into a human being.

It is the same, as in another picture that evolutionists to show the development of the whale from a small four legged tiger type ancestor. It can't happen, because the tiger type animal doesn't have any whale genes, and cannot add any.

But a Southern Wright whale can develop over time into a Sperm Whale because it is the same kind with the same set of genes. if two SWW (Southern Wright) whales have SWW and SW (Sperm Whale) genes, then they could produce either SWW or SW whales depending on which gene is dominant. But two SWW offspring can only produce SWW offspring, because they don't have any SW genes to enable an SW offspring, because the SW gene is missing.

This means that an ape with ape genes can only produce ape offspring, ever. It cannot produce any form of part or complete human because there are no human genes there to start with, and to produce anything other than an ape offspring it has to have genetic material added to enable it. But genetic material can only be dropped away, not added.

But a human offspring in the womb has its human genetic code, and it's that genetic code that causes its development through the different stages of its growth until it is born. This is not the type of evolution that develops, say an ape into a human. The embryo is human from conception and remains human until birth. This is not biological evolution, nor mutation, but physical development.

Biological and geological evolution requires material, time and chance; in other words, the original material has to appear from nothing and then develop into what we see around us through time and chance. So do you really believe that everything in the world around us, the sun, moon, stars and galaxies all came from absolutely nothing?

 

[Taken]

So! You are the same kind as a banana! Right! I get it!

Nothing to the point I said.

I think that you are using the word "evolution" in a different way to what standard evolutionists use it.

The root Word: Evolve: develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Here is the dictionary meaning:
evolution
/ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(ə)n,ˈɛvəluːʃ(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
   synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
   "early ecologists were not interested in evolution"
   
   
2. 2.
   the gradual development of something.

Yes, As I already said.

The way you are using the word fits more into definition 2.2 than 1.1. If so, then I agree with you.

Definition # 1...irrelevant to me.
"Are Believed"...lol, by WHO and WHY...lol, not me!"

Here is the biological definition:
Evolution (evo‧lu‧tion, ˈɛvəluːʃ(ə)n) is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations. Natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation could bring about evolution. It may also pertain to a sequence of events depicting the development of a species or of a group of related organisms.

Yes, Biology Jargon, Specific to "species".
And particularly Why I mentioned "KINDS" of things "Created", which is different from "species".

Species are KINDS of things that can have intercourse and actually produce an offspring.

Humans can have intercourse with an animal, but can not produce an offspring.

But when we look at the following picture, which describes the evolution of man as believed, we see a transition from an ape, which is an animal with a different genetic structure, to a human being. When I debate against evolution, this is the type of evolution that I believe is a fairy tale:
View attachment 8942

^^ Then one could look at the Dictionary, definition #1 and be completely satisfied to agree with someone they do not know believes or know why...or adopt the Biology Jargon Version of its meaning! I don't.
(BTW, legalese, has its own Jargon as well, which called things which are not, those things. )

It is a genetic fact that changes with in a kind involves a loss of genetic code through mutation.

Disagree. Species, yes. KINDS, no.

This means that a dark, brown haired person changes into a blue eyed blonde because the dark brown gene is gone and the blue eyed blonde gene remains because the blue eyed gene is dominant. Two blue eyed gene people will produce blue eyed offspring, but not brown eyed because the brown eyed gene is missing from the two blue eyed parents.

Yet, they are the same KIND of thing...human

But for an ape to develop by mutation into a human being, genetic material has to be added for the ape to develop into a higher type of being. This is the same as saying that two blue-eyed parents obtains a brown-eyed gene which they don't have, to produce brown-eyed offspring. According to genetic theory this is impossible. Therefore for a human offspring to occur from an ape, the ape has to have the same genetic codes as the human, which it doesn't. It needs more genetic material to be added. This is why it is impossible, even over millions of years, for an ape to develop into a human being.

An animal is one KIND of Thing, a Human another KIND of thing...
One can not become the other.
They together cannot produce an offspring.

It is the same, as in another picture that evolutionists to show the development of the whale from a small four legged tiger type ancestor. It can't happen, because the tiger type animal doesn't have any whale genes, and cannot add any.

That may be the scientific reasoning/understanding, However God Created...a KINDS of sea animals and KINDS of land animals and KINDS of flight animals.
Animals may Adapt to their environment...but certain KINDS of animals can not produce offspring.

But a Southern Wright whale can develop over time into a Sperm Whale because it is the same kind with the same set of genes. if two SWW (Southern Wright) whales have SWW and SW (Sperm Whale) genes, then they could produce either SWW or SW whales depending on which gene is dominant. But two SWW offspring can only produce SWW offspring, because they don't have any SW genes to enable an SW offspring, because the SW gene is missing.

Flight, land, Sea creatures, can become another Species. A female fish could lay eggs and a different kind of fish fertalize the eggs, for example.

This means that an ape with ape genes can only produce ape offspring, ever. It cannot produce any form of part or complete human because there are no human genes there to start with, and to produce anything other than an ape offspring it has to have genetic material added to enable it. But genetic material can only be dropped away, not added.

But a human offspring in the womb has its human genetic code, and it's that genetic code that causes its development through the different stages of its growth until it is born. This is not the type of evolution that develops, say an ape into a human. The embryo is human from conception and remains human until birth. This is not biological evolution, nor mutation, but physical development.

Biological and geological evolution requires material, time and chance; in other words, the original material has to appear from nothing and then develop into what we see around us through time and chance.

Animals do not become humans or reproduce offspring with a human... and visa Versace.

So do you really believe that everything in the world around us, the sun, moon, stars and galaxies all came from absolutely nothing?

Why would you ask me such a question?
Where did you get such an idea from anthing I have said?

Taken

 

[Paul Christensen]

Yep. The new species breeds true, but cannot interbreed with the species from which it evolved.

View attachment 8938
The Mutation theory v. 1, 1909

So it was a mutation within the same plant family in the same manner as a horse interbreeds with a donkey and evolves into a mule, which is still part of the horse family. As the plant you quoted becomes a different plant within the same plant family through the mutation of interbreeding and cannot reproduce, then the horse mutating into a mule through interbreeding also cannot reproduce, so what is the difference?

 

[Yehren]

So it was a mutation within the same plant family in the same manner as a horse interbreeds with a donkey and evolves into a mule,

No. It was a mutation that produced a new kind of primrose that breeds true within its species, but cannot breed with the species from which it evolved. Remember again what "evolution" means in biology.

then the horse mutating into a mule through interbreeding

No. That's wrong. It is occasionally possible to evolve new species by hybridization, but mules are not a species since they generally are sterile.

so what is the difference?

One is a mutation that produced a new species. The other is a hybridization that produces sterile offspring that are not a new species.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Nothing to the point I said.



The root Word: Evolve: develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.



Yes, As I already said.



Definition # 1...irrelevant to me.
"Are Believed"...lol, by WHO and WHY...lol, not me!"



Yes, Biology Jargon, Specific to "species".
And particularly Why I mentioned "KINDS" of things "Created", which is different from "species".

Species are KINDS of things that can have intercourse and actually produce an offspring.

Humans can have intercourse with an animal, but can not produce an offspring.

I read half of your post with interest, but could read the rest because I think you got one of your quote instructions messed up.

 

[Yehren]

You don't seem to know what "evolve" means.

Try a dictionary and compare my answer to that.

Hm...
Evolution is a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time.
evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

I already mentioned Darwins Titled THEORY.

Yes, it's a theory, not a law or a hypothesis, because its predictions have been repeatedly verified by evidence. Hence, Newton's theory of gravitation.

Species are KINDS of things that can have intercourse and actually produce an offspring.

Yep. New kinds of species evolve from earlier ones. As you know, most creationist organizations now admit the fact of speciation.

They don't want to call it "evolution", but as you learned, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. I can't understand for you. What's hard to understand is how creationists can't comprehend something as simple as "change in alleles over time."

I don't blame you for failing to understand

This has been big help to me in understanding YE creationism:

although it's still weird how some creationists are locked into their new religion:

YE creationist does not mean the brightest crayon in the box, but it's not really stupidity that leads them astray. It's more insidious.

 

[Paul Christensen]

No. It was a mutation that produced a new kind of primrose that breeds true within its species, but cannot breed with the species from which it evolved. Remember again what "evolution" means in biology.



No. That's wrong. It is occasionally possible to evolve new species by hybridization, but mules are not a species since they generally are sterile.



One is a mutation that produced a new species. The other is a hybridization that produces sterile offspring that are not a new species.

So the plant wasn't a Primrose any longer? But you are saying it is still a Primrose, so it is still a member of the same plant family as a mule remains a member of the same horse family. If the Primrose had "evolved" into another separate plant family and ceased being a Primrose, then I would have to concede your point.

A monkey and mutate into a chimpanzee through genetic variation over time, but it is still a member of the ape family. But a chimpanzee could never mutate into a human being, because, although similar in their genetic code, something in the genetic code would have to be added, and this has proved to be impossible and right against the principle of genetics.

I appreciate our conversation because I am learning a lot about genetics, and how evolution can be looked at in terms of development within the same species family, and across different species, and the differences between what creationist and evolutionists believe.

You cannot make me believe in cross-species evolution, because my foundation is different than yours; but you are helping me understand it more. And you have continued kicking the ball, and not the player!

 

[Yehren]

But when we look at the following picture, which describes the evolution of man as believed,

No. It's kind of a joke. No scientist thinks it's like that. It's a old and discredited idea called "orthogenesis."

Orthogenesis, also known as orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution, evolutionary progress, or progressionism, is the biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal (teleology) due to some internal mechanism or "driving force".
Orthogenesis - Wikipedia

That's not what happens. It's more like this:

we see a transition from an ape, which is an animal with a different genetic structure, to a human being.

That's one of the things that keeps tripping you up. Humans and chimpanzees are genetically more alike than either is to any other ape.

When I debate against evolution, this is the type of evolution that I believe is a fairy tale:

That time you got it right. Orthogenesis is clearly wrong.

 

[Paul Christensen]

No. It's kind of a joke. No scientist thinks it's like that. It's a old and discredited idea called "orthogenesis."

Orthogenesis, also known as orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution, evolutionary progress, or progressionism, is the biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal (teleology) due to some internal mechanism or "driving force".
Orthogenesis - Wikipedia

That's not what happens. It's more like this:

That's one of the things that keeps tripping you up. Humans and chimpanzees are genetically more alike than either is to any other ape.



That time you got it right. Orthogenesis is clearly wrong.

I understand, but that's what is in school text books to show how man evolved from apes, and it is taught to high school students as real science. It is no wonder it is so hard to get the gospel through to young people when they have this type of teaching instilled into them through their high school years, and the church can't give them a good Biblical answer.

 

[Yehren]

So the plant wasn't a Primrose any longer

It was a different kind. That's how evolution works. We often hear creationists argue that evolution would be like a cat becoming a dog. It's always speciation, with gradual change. Most major creationist organizations now admit that speciation is a fact, and they even acknowledge that new genera and familes (and sometimes more) develop from other forms. They just don't like to call it "evolution."

A monkey and mutate into a chimpanzee through genetic variation over time, but it is still a member of the ape family.

No. Monkeys and apes are not in the same family. The are in the same infraorder, with some monkeys much more distantly related (new world monkeys).

But a chimpanzee could never mutate into a human being, because, although similar in their genetic code, something in the genetic code would have to be added,

And other things removed. But mainly, they can't reproduce because humans had a chromosome fusion at one point, which made them reproductively isolated from other hominins like chimpanzees and Australopithecines.

 

[Paul Christensen]

No. It's kind of a joke. No scientist thinks it's like that. It's a old and discredited idea called "orthogenesis."

Orthogenesis, also known as orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution, evolutionary progress, or progressionism, is the biological hypothesis that organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a definite direction towards some goal (teleology) due to some internal mechanism or "driving force".
Orthogenesis - Wikipedia

That's not what happens. It's more like this:

That's one of the things that keeps tripping you up. Humans and chimpanzees are genetically more alike than either is to any other ape.



That time you got it right. Orthogenesis is clearly wrong.

If your picture reflect the true evolution of man, then how is genetic code added to enable the evolution to a higher form of primate, and eventually human, when actual genetics drops parts of genetic code off? This is shown in closed communities with limited genetic variation eventually producing deformed offspring because too much of the code is gone? Isn't this way we can't marry close relatives?

Also, why are all these stages of human evolution not found in the fossil records, along with the dinosaur bones which are supposed to have been much older?

I'll just ask those two questions so I don't burden with too many at once!