I would hate to think that MacGyver1968 is just a moral coward and intellectual wannabe that knows that his comfort in life comes about by serving power systems.
Do you live in the woods? What do you mean by "comforts", and how does one person acquire them by serving the power systems of gainful employment vs. the power systems of religion tapping the jugular of the emotionally captive congregants? You never give us any benchmarks to go by -- but I suppose that comes from a lack of experience in science. Mac is the first person to post a piece of scientific evidence as well as the background about the parties who published. He should be credited for this, not insulted.
. . .It's part of my spiritual message about morality
A spiritual person doesn't resort to personalities of this sort in a science-related discussion. Why attack an upbeat and friendly person, and how in the world do you justify such an attack under the premise of religion?
in the face of monstrous evil, which, as you may recall, was immediately rejected by one poster on this thread already because, obviously, he was openly hostile to anything and everything that sounds religious)
As you might expect, since you've brought your religion into the context of CT, while using pseudoscience to state claims (e.g. smoke robs air of oxygen) you're inviting the opposing point of view, which notes that religiosity is one of the markers measured on the psychological tests for pathological disorders, as well as denial, anger, fear, blame-shifting and lying -- all of which comport with the express statements by many CTists many of us have encountered.
But more to the point, the "monstrous evil" seen though the jaded eye of a particular kind of religion -- one that merges fundamentalism with meddling in social policy (T-baggers, formerly the Religious Right, etc.) is not the body of people working in technical jobs. It's those particular churches (to include all the ones who deny being churches, and even deny being religions) who continue to intrude into areas of science, law and public policy for which they have no training. Worse, they have invented all of their knowledge bases to persuade believers that the world's free body of knowledge is tainted by the devil, and do their utmost to program the masses with as many lies and deceptions as they can muster. Why defend them? Why not simply engage folks like Mac with candor and respect.
If you have evidence, bring it on. But concede when you've been given an answer to a bogus claim. At present I left you with an opening to propound the science related to the claim that smoke reduces O[sub]2[/sub]. I was looking for an answer that smoke contains particles, which do not displace O[sub]2[/sub] plus gases which evolve as the material burns. I was looking for the law of partial pressures, which explains why, as the by products of combustion evolve, the air becomes recharged with O[sub]2[/sub] from the fresh air around and below the fire. That is, gases do not magically separate like the waters of the Red Sea. They remain as diffused as the system will allow. In order to deplete the O[sub]2[/sub] you would need to confine the air. As I recall this was a problem for Iraqi loyalist troops sealed in bunkers who were struck by gasoline bombs. The sudden removal of a large volume of O[sub]2[/sub] was sufficient to suffocate them, a condition that would smother a fire. And yet the flames are licking the buildings and there is no refuge from it inside, thus the people are jumping to their deaths. You can count how many panes of glass are missing and we can calculate an aperture if you like and from there we ought to be able to figure for the wind in order to come up with a recharge rate. But I think without any evidence of bombs that's moot to the overall failures of the CT. You still need to decide what chemicals you think were found by the CT bomb forensics team.
It may be that you didn't really want to discuss facts and evidence, but these are few that stand in controversy to a some of your remarks here.
)