Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[CabinetMaker]

No mention of supercritical water in the Bible, so I am supercritical about wasting more than this line more on the subject. But then, I just might

What is more interesting at this moment is this article:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/

There is water in the center of the Earth but it is locked up in rock. Supercritical liquids are one thing, one very complex thing. How do you get the water out of these rocks? How do you get the water back into the rock? Seems the whole supercritical water discussion just became meaningless.

 

[Stripe]

What is more interesting at this moment is this article.

:yawn:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

:yawn:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Interesting reaction given that the article lends support to there being an amount of water under the crust that is estimated to be 3 times the volume of the surface oceans. Secular support for your your favored hypothesis and you find it boring.

 

[Stripe]

Interesting reaction given that the article lends support to there being an amount of water under the crust that is estimated to be 3 times the volume of the surface oceans. Secular support for your your favored hypothesis and you find it boring.

When you're willing to understand what is being discussed, wake us up.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

When you're willing to understand what is being discussed, wake us up.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I had hoped to move this conversation out of the realm of idle speculation and start dealing with an actual scientific discovery that Knight posted a month or two ago. But if dealing with actual facts is beyond your abilities, we can reamain in the realm of idle speculation. Your choice.

 

[Stripe]

I had hoped to move this conversation out of the realm of idle speculation and start dealing with an actual scientific discovery that Knight posted a month or two ago. But if dealing with actual facts is beyond your abilities, we can reamain in the realm of idle speculation. Your choice.

When you won't answer simple questions, what's the point? You're obviously lying.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

When you won't answer simple questions, what's the point? You're obviously lying.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Lying about what? I haven't lied about anything.

 

[Stripe]

Lying about what? I haven't lied about anything.

You're lying with the sentiment throughout this post:

I had hoped to move this conversation out of the realm of idle speculation and start dealing with an actual scientific discovery that Knight posted a month or two ago. But if dealing with actual facts is beyond your abilities, we can reamain in the realm of idle speculation. Your choice.

You dismiss Hydroplate theory without the slightest attempt at understanding it, then you go all sanctimonious, talking as if you're on top of it all.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

You're lying with the sentiment throughout this postb:

The fact that you don't like what I have to say does not make me a liar. You presented a hypothesis and it does not look like it stands up to scrutiny.

You dismiss Hydroplate theory without the slightest attempt at understanding it, then you go all sanctimonious, talking as if you're on top of it all.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I didn't go sanctimonious. I brought up a new fact regarding what is below the crust and then you start calling me names. That is an ad hominem fallacy on your part. Did you even follow the link?

 

[Stripe]

You presented a hypothesis and it does not look like it stands up to scrutiny.

:rotfl:

I presented very little. However, you decided it must all be false, despite spending exactly no time learning what was being referenced.

When you can answer the simple question I asked, you might have legitimacy in this conversation. Until then, you're just a troll. :troll:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

:rotfl:

I presented very little. However, you decided it must all be false, despite spending exactly no time learning what was being referenced.

When you can answer the simple question I asked, you might have legitimacy in this conversation. Until then, you're just a troll. :troll:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I've answered your question several different ways. You don't like my answered so you are having a tantrum.

If you have a bucket I'd super critical water and punch a hole in it the bucket will likely explode because you have weakened its structural integrity. If we assume that the bucket stays together then you are going to get a jet of high pressure supercritical steam spraying out of you hole. That is what happens when you remove the pressure on water that is over 700 degrees. As I said previously, please show us Walt's calculations for a throttling valve that is capable of reducing supercritical water to clod water while retaining enough energy to eject material and escape velocity.

This is is your favored hypothesis, you defend it with something other than ad hominem quips.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I've answered your question several different ways. You don't like my answered so you are having a tantrum.

If you have a bucket I'd super critical water and punch a hole in it the bucket will likely explode because you have weakened its structural integrity. If we assume that the bucket stays together then you are going to get a jet of high pressure supercritical steam spraying out of you hole. That is what happens when you remove the pressure on water that is over 700 degrees. As I said previously, please show us Walt's calculations for a throttling valve that is capable of reducing supercritical water to clod water while retaining enough energy to eject material and escape velocity.

This is is your favored hypothesis, you defend it with something other than ad hominem quips.

You're forgetting the part where he asked what temperature is the stuff coming out of the container, is it hot or cold?

 

[CabinetMaker]

You're forgetting the part where he asked what temperature is the stuff coming out of the container, is it hot or cold?

Read it again. I said very clearly that what would be coming out of the hole is going to be a jet of superheated steam. That is what happens when you remove the pressure that is keeping 700 degree water from boiling.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Read it again. I said very clearly that what would be coming out of the hole is going to be a jet of superheated steam. That is what happens when you remove the pressure that is keeping 700 degree water from boiling.

You said "supercritical steam" (which doesn't exist, by the way, because "steam" is a gas, and beyond the critical point of a substance, it is neither liquid nor gas), not "superheated steam."

By the way, I've been meaning to ask you, could you point me to a study or paper or some other material that shows what happens when pressure is removed from supercritical water?

I can't seem to find anything...

 

[CabinetMaker]

You said "supercritical steam" (which doesn't exist, by the way, because "steam" is a gas, and beyond the critical point of a substance, it is neither liquid nor gas), not "superheated steam."

By the way, I've been meaning to ask you, could you point me to a study or paper or some other material that shows what happens when pressure is removed from supercritical water?

I can't seem to find anything...

You're right, it is superheated steam.

I found several papers regarding running supercritical liquids through a throttling valve. It is frequently used in manufacturing processes under ver controlled conditions. It is never expanded into free air, it is expanded into a tank.

But, when you take water and heat to something I the range off 700+ degrees at something over 3900psi, you have a fluid with a huge amount of energy stored in it. The law of conservation of energy applies. That is why I asked Stripe, and you, to provide Walt's calculations regarding super critical water being converted to cold water. It is your claim that these fountains did just that. Your claim, you support it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You're right, it is superheated steam.

I found several papers

Ok.... And? To resay what I said: Could you point me to them? Saying you found some papers doesn't do me any good if you don't share them.

regarding running supercritical liquids through a throttling valve. It is frequently used in manufacturing processes under very controlled conditions. It is never expanded into free air, it is expanded into a tank.

So, not only is there still pressure (from being contained in a closed system), but there is no test that shows what happens when it's released into the open air, is that what you're saying?

But, when you take water and heat to something I the range off 700+ degrees at something over 3900psi, you have a fluid with a huge amount of energy stored in it. The law of conservation of energy applies. That is why I asked Stripe, and you, to provide Walt's calculations regarding super critical water being converted to cold water. It is your claim that these fountains did just that. Your claim, you support it.

I have previously (repeatedly) given you the page where Walt "shows his work."

Here it is again:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes6.html#wp14800338

He shows how even with an initial temperature of 1300 degrees F, the fountain itself would have been around -459 degrees F (-460F is absolute zero).

 

[JudgeRightly]

Walt Brown said it, it must be true.
Brown's "book" is Scripture to Stripe. Total nonsense but he must believe it because it provides a basis for his theological need. And it is so much easier to "believe" something rather than being critical.

Get out of here, troll.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Ok.... And? To resay what I said: Could you point me to them? Saying you found some papers doesn't do me any good if you don't share them.



So, not only is there still pressure (from being contained in a closed system), but there is no test that shows what happens when it's released into the open air, is that what you're saying?



I have previously (repeatedly) given you the page where Walt "shows his work."

Here it is again:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes6.html#wp14800338

He shows how even with an initial temperature of 1300 degrees F, the fountain itself would have been around -459 degrees F (-460F is absolute zero).

What is the phase of water at -459F? Hint, it is no longer liquid. I don't see where this makes your case any stronger. But it does explain why Walt needs his hypothesis to create meteors and comets. In any case, if these fountains are all around the world are spewing out -459F material for 40 days, what do you think the temperatures of the planet would be?

In any case, you have a new problem. A rock structure has been found under the crust that is estimated to contain three times the volume of water so our surface oceans. You can Google this as well and find several different reports about the finding.

 

[Stripe]

I've answered your question.

Nope. Try reading it again. :up:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

If these fountains are all around the world are spewing out -459F material for 40 days, what do you think the temperatures of the planet would be?

This is interesting. Now you think the fountains would be cold?

This is why conversations with you are a waste of time.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk