If Evolution

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Please explain how water goes from above the freezing point to freezing without releasing any heat in the process.
You're having the same problem Blablaman has. Energy does not have to go to heat. Try using your imagination. Hot water under pressure is released. Water rushes into the sky. What form of energy was the heat mainly converted to?

And that's one of the heat issues Baumgardner identifies in the paper I linked to.

Take it up with him. I do not ascribe to his ideas.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
You're having the same problem Blablaman has. Energy does not have to go to heat. Try using your imagination. Hot water under pressure is released. Water rushes into the sky.

Geysers powerful enough to put water "into the sky" would have to accelerate it to about 7 miles per second. So that motion produces huge amounts of heat from friction with the air.

What form of energy was the heat mainly converted to?

Actually, you're talking about kinetic energy transformed to heat by friction.

It's much worse than spacecraft have to encounter. They are propelled by rockets carrying fuel, which don't require escape velocity at once. On the other hand, the water would have to be expelled from the earth at seven miles per second.

Which would vaporize it, and merely heat up the atmosphere.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Geysers powerful enough to put water "into the sky" would have to accelerate it to about 7 miles per second. So that motion produces huge amounts of heat from friction with the air.

Actually, you're talking about kinetic energy transformed to heat by friction.

It's much worse than spacecraft have to encounter. They are propelled by rockets carrying fuel, which don't require escape velocity at once. On the other hand, the water would have to be expelled from the earth at seven miles per second.

Which would vaporize it, and merely heat up the atmosphere.

Answered here.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview6.html
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Geysers powerful enough to put water "into the sky" would have to accelerate it to about 7 miles per second. So that motion produces huge amounts of heat from friction with the air.
Nope.

It would have to shove the air out of the way, opening a window in the atmosphere.

You should have a little read of the ideas you hate before posting nonsense that has been answered.

You're talking about kinetic energy transformed to heat by friction.
Nope.

That's what you want to talk about, but your ignorance has been put on display for all to read.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Darwinists aren't interested in discussing ideas; their sole aim is to protect their precious religion. Thus with anything that threatens — or even appears to threaten — evolution, they will say anything to suppress it.
 

Jose Fly

New member
So we agree that this water would have been extremely hot (so much so that it becomes supercritical water). But that link doesn't say how much water was there.
What's the temperature difference between the numbers given in the above link and 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius)? :think:

Come on, what kind of question is that?

Edit: depressurizing any liquid will cool it. Bye bye heat issue.
Look you guys, this isn't that difficult. Taking water down to its freezing point is an exothermic reaction. It's why fruit farmers spray water on their crops when it gets cold.

So in this case we have a very large amount of super-heated water that you're saying will be rapidly taken down to the freezing point. Because that's an exothermic reaction, it's going to give off heat. Do you understand that very basic point?

So according to Brown, the batholiths did not exist prior to the flood and they "cooled rapidly". As I noted before, other young-earth creationists have estimated the amount of heat that would release and they concluded that it couldn't have occurred without a miracle (otherwise everything on earth would have been cooked).
 

Jose Fly

New member
Energy does not have to go to heat.
Are you disputing that the freezing of water is an exothermic reaction?

Hot water under pressure is released. Water rushes into the sky. What form of energy was the heat mainly converted to?
This isn't about the water rushing. It's about the exothermic reaction that takes place when water freezes.

Take it up with him. I do not ascribe to his ideas.
Do you have a specific criticism of his estimates, or do you just blindly wave them away?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
So we agree that this water would have been extremely hot (so much so that it becomes supercritical water). But that link doesn't say how much water was there.

Well, Jose, it's not like it doesn't give you an idea.

60 miles below the crust, 1 mile (average) deep chambers, full of supercritical water. Do the math. It also says about half of the water in the oceans today is from the Great Deep.

Look you guys, this isn't that difficult. Taking water down to its freezing point is an exothermic reaction. It's why fruit farmers spray water on their crops when it gets cold.

So in this case we have a very large amount of super-heated water that you're saying will be rapidly taken down to the freezing point. Because that's an exothermic reaction, it's going to give off heat. Do you understand that very basic point?

The expansion of a gas or liquid is an endothermic reaction (usually). The fluid was already giving off heat because it was compressed, but when that pressure is released, the expansion of the fluid is an endothermic, meaning it cools. The water/brine wouldn't have frozen until it reached higher altitudes (think space)

So according to Brown, the batholiths did not exist prior to the flood and they "cooled rapidly". As I noted before, other young-earth creationists have estimated the amount of heat that would release and they concluded that it couldn't have occurred without a miracle (otherwise everything on earth would have been cooked).

Jose, what happens when any liquid or gas expands? it cools right?

For example, lets say I have a can of compressed air that I use for cleaning off my computer. When I pick it up, it's at room temperature. But when I start spraying that air onto my keyboard, the released air is extremely cold, as well as the can itself starts to cool down to where it's almost painful to hold, because it gets so cold.

The same can be said of this supercritical water in the chambers, and even magma. When the pressure keeping it contained is released, the expansion of the fluid cools it extremely rapidly. Again, just basic physics, no miracles necessary.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Well, Jose, it's not like it doesn't give you an idea.

60 miles below the crust, 1 mile (average) deep chambers, full of supercritical water. Do the math. It also says about half of the water in the oceans today is from the Great Deep.
Um.....this is an idea you're advocating, so let's see your math. I've already shown where other young-earth creationists have done some estimates and concluded that this idea isn't feasible without numerous miracles. You ignored that information.

The expansion of a gas or liquid is an endothermic reaction (usually). The fluid was already giving off heat because it was compressed, but when that pressure is released, the expansion of the fluid is an endothermic, meaning it cools. The water/brine wouldn't have frozen until it reached higher altitudes (think space)
Again, let's see your math on that.

Jose, what happens when any liquid or gas expands? it cools right?
If you're going to argue that the endothermic expansion of the water was sufficient to negate the effects of the rapid exothermic cooling of the water, then you need to show the math that supports it.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
It's called adiabatic cooling. :thumb:

Let's see... you suppose that water was ejected from the earth at something like seven miles per second (which would be necessary to get it "into the sky.") The friction of such velocities would produce a huge quantity of heat.

BTW, Adiabatic cooling is the process of reducing heat through a change in air pressure caused by volume expansion. Water, being nearly incompressible, will not exhibit such cooling, unless heated to a vapor. Water does have an extraordinarily high specific heat, which would help it absorb the vast amounts of thermal energy produced by the velocities you're imagining.

At those energies, even ice would quickly be vaporized, and much of the thermal energy would be contained in the water vapor initially.

Thermodynamics (yes Stipe, that thing that baffles and annoys you) requires that thermal energy move from hot objects to cooler ones. So the superheated water vapor would then by conduction, radiation, and convection transfer thermal energy to the atmosphere, steaming the biosphere.

Assuming the quantities and velocities you have imagined for the ejected water. Merely ejecting water at high pressures does not vaporize it, of course. If that were true, water cutters would not be possible. But accelerating water through the atmosphere at close to escape velocity would certainly do that, producing a huge amount of heat.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Let's see... you suppose that water was ejected from the earth at something like seven miles per second (which would be necessary to get it "into the sky.") The friction of such velocities would produce a huge quantity of heat.

BTW, Adiabatic cooling is the process of reducing heat through a change in air pressure caused by volume expansion. Water, being nearly incompressible, will not exhibit such cooling, unless heated to a vapor. Water does have an extraordinarily high specific heat, which would help it absorb the vast amounts of thermal energy produced by the velocities you're imagining.

At those energies, even ice would quickly be vaporized, and much of the thermal energy would be contained in the water vapor initially.

Thermodynamics (yes Stipe, that thing that baffles and annoys you) requires that thermal energy move from hot objects to cooler ones. So the superheated water vapor would then by conduction, radiation, and convection transfer thermal energy to the atmosphere, steaming the biosphere.

Assuming the quantities and velocities you have imagined for the ejected water. Merely ejecting water at high pressures does not vaporize it, of course. If that were true, water cutters would not be possible. But accelerating water through the atmosphere at close to escape velocity would certainly do that, producing a huge amount of heat.

Nope.

This whole reading thing is a bit beyond you, isn't it?
 

Greg Jennings

New member
If a ball rolls down a hill, how can it come to a stop without all its kinetic energy being converted to heat?

I don't know if ALL of its kinetic energy becomes heat, but certainly friction -- which is heat related -- plays a substantial role in slowing your ball down
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I don't know if ALL of its kinetic energy becomes heat, but certainly friction -- which is heat related -- plays a substantial role in slowing your ball down

Nope. You can stop the ball without losing any significant amount of energy to heat.

Blablaman has already explained how. If you won't read what I write, perhaps you will listen to him. :idunno:
 

Stuu

New member
This is where the Darwinist's practice of avoiding sensible dialogue gets us. They will do anything to avoid a discussion over the evidence, so when the conversation heads that way, they spam it until it's buried.

Good luck finding the posts. They're back there somewhere.
But you don't feel the need yourself to find and highlight those original posts, just instead to cast off those who are curious to explore your claims.

I agree with you. Your claims are not worth repeating.

Stuart
 
Top