The Ozone Hole

The hole in the ozone layer is a perfect example of scientists disregarding science to push their agenda through. First of all, it is extremely likely that the ozone hole has always been there. We simply recently found it and decided that it was a global crisis. It is only there for a few months of the year, and has not been studied long enough to know if it is growing. It is also over Antarctica, and has never posed a significant threat to anyone. Clearly, the most bogus claim is that the hole in the ozone layer caused global warming. Now you may have seen, that there are now some articles coming out that say that a study was done by astute scientists who think that it might be possible that after all this time, the hole actually counter-acts global warming. We didn't need a study that probably cost thousands of dollars to tell us that. Any 7th grader using simple logic could have told you that. Think about it... Mercury, is the closest planet to the sun. Venus is the next closest. Even though this is true, Venus is hotter than Mercury. Why? Because Venus has an atmosphere, while Mercury does not. In other words, the less atmosphere there is, the colder it will be. Scientists have known this for at least a hundred year, yet the scientist that made this claim was awarded a Nobel prize, and praised for his obviously faulty discovery. Now maybe this just slipped through the system, and nobody noticed it. I might still be willing to forgive this honest mistake if the result hadn't been thousands of innocent people's deaths. After this claim was made, CFCs were banned. CFCs create a protection for carbon which shoots up into the Antarctic atmosphere with the polar blast. The CFCs protect the carbon until it is in the atmosphere and the carbon destroys the ozone. CFCs were also the cheapest, and most efficient way to cool things in refrigerators and air conditioners. After CFCs were banned, companies had to come up with a different way to accomplish this goal (see my other blog for more on what I think of government doing things like this). This way was much more expensive, and as a result, thousands of people in third world countries died, and still feel the effects today. No one has ever been killed by the hole in the ozone layer, but scientists claimed that the ozone hole (which if you'll remember has most likely always been there) was a crisis that could end up in the destruction of the entire world. These scientists are treated like heroes, even though their actions and propaganda resulted in the death of thousands of people. This is what science has become. A field where people will push their agenda no matter what the result. They disregard any theory that does not conform with their belief, and hide evidence that contradicts them. It's funny, because after doing all of this, they accuse others of doing the same thing. They tell people who do not conform with their beliefs that there biases are anti-educational, and not welcome in such an important field. Scientists are supposed to examine the data, and draw unbiased conclusions. Now everyone has a bias, no matter what they tell, you. I already told you at the beginning that I had one, and I also said that the ozone hole probably has always been there based on my bias. No one can stop themselves from being biased, even in science, but that doesn't mean that you refuse to let others refute your views.

Why the Difference Between Micro and Macro Evolution Presents a Problem to Evolution

In this post I will attempt to explain the difference between these two theories through a purely scientific view. I would like to mention first that my personal world-view is Christianity (which you will most likely realize by the end). Although my world-view is Christianity, that doesn't mean that you have to be a Christian to agree with me. The reason I will try to speak from a scientific view is because I want every world-view or religion to realize that there are other alternatives (not necessarily religious) to evolution.
Anyone who has truly studied the issue will tell you that there is, in fact, a difference between micro and macro evolution. Many evolutionists claim that there is no difference between them, but anyone who holds this view is not credible. Any true evolutionary scientist will tell you that there is a difference.
When Darwin came up with his hypotheses, he would have disagreed with this statement. Darwin theorized that if a living organism can change a little over a small amount of time, then it can change a lot over a large amount of time. This assumption was perfectly reasonable considering what was known about science at the time, but this idea is laughable today. After Darwin came Mendel. Mendel discovered the basics of genetics. A gene is a section of DNA. Each gene has the "blue prints" to a specific trait that the parent organism will pass on to its offspring. Different species' genetic material are incompatible with other species' genetic material. This is why two different species cannot reproduce with each other unless they have the same genetic material. The famous finches that Darwin observed had the same genetic material, and therefore passed different genes down to their offspring causing them to change over time. Since different species' genetic materials are incompatible, one species cannot produce another species even over millions of years. This would destroy the evolutionary hypothesis completely except that genes can be changed by mutation. This is the difference between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is an unusual process where mutation creates a new species, while micro evolution is a natural inheritance of genes.
An example that evolutionists will give of mutation is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This is when one strain of bacteria has its genetic material mutated and it does not let the antibiotic into the bacterium. This seems to confirm the validity of the evolutionary hypothesis until you look at exactly what the mutation did to the bacterium. When the bacterium's genes were mutated, it removed the genetic material that creates proteins that allow food into the cell. When the bacterium does not allow food into the cell, it does not allow the antibiotic into the cell either. So although the mutation kept the cell alive, it didn't advance the species, but instead made it less stable. Another example of mutation is at Chernobyl or any form of radiation poisoning. A large environmental change occurred and killed off most of those living near the change. Instead of adding genetic material, and making those with mutated genes stronger, it struck all of the affected with disease and terrible maladies. Almost everyone with affected genes died or their offspring were born mutated as well. In other words, it took away genetic material instead of adding to it. The view that organisms slowly mutate until a new species is created is called neo-Darwinism. Since an addition of genetic material instead of a subtraction of it has never been observed in the history of science, and there are no intermediate links in the fossil record, there is little evidence supporting this theory. The other evolutionary view is called punctuated equilibrium. This hypothesis claims that species stay the same for millions of years, but then a sudden and dramatic change in their environment causes the genes to mutate. Those who survive give birth to an entirely new species. This process repeats itself millions of times and every time, a new species is created. Now lets disregard the fact that we just showed that there is no evidence that genetic material can be added by mutation. So we have most of the species killed off and many of those left have mutated genes. Now we have another problem. Remember when I said that different genetic materials are incompatible with one another? Therefore, unless two of the same species experienced the exact ame mutation and these two organisms reproduce with each other tahn it would be impossible to create a new species by this method. On top of this, most species would have probably died out afterwards. The likelihood of this happening even over billions of years is astronomical. Even if all of this were possible there is plenty more scientific evidence refuting the hypothesis of evoluton. For example, most animals have the protein cytochrome C. A protein is simply a string of amino acids. In different species, this protein is mad up of different orders of different amino acids. An evolutionist would naturally theorize that animals that are more closely related would have a similar order of these amino acids. This is usually the opposite of the truth. 91% of the data shows that there is no evolutionary pattern between the order of these amino acids and evolutionists leav us without an explanation. There are countless other examples of contradictory evidence to evolution, but hardly any of this is known to the public. There have been cases of evolutionists hiding evidence that goes against their world-view simply because they don't want to believe that their opinion could be wrong. I'm not saying that mine or anyone's belief is perfect, but there are no widely taught scientific contradictory evidences to evolution. Science is about contradictory views, but evolutionists refuse to even observe and refute these views. This is lazy and anti-educational science and there should be different views at least observed and debated in the scientific spectrum.