While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
2008, rolled initiative and posted the following:

> On Aug 12, 5:33*pm, Derek > wrote:
>> While intrepidly exploring the bowels of USENET on Tuesday, August 12,
>
>>>> Evaporation produces H20 in the air. It's still water. It doesn't
>>>> produce nitrogen or free-standing oxygen, which make up the majority
>>>> of our air.
>>
>>> So what does it produce? Dirt? What does steam produce? Dirt?
>>> Funny how you never answer this.
>>
>> Water vapor from evaporation later condenses in the high atmosphere
>> and comes back down as precipitation.
>
> "Later" what about "sooner" and "in between time"? Air. You breathe
> some amount of evaporated water every day and with every breath. Why
> do you continue to duck this fact?

I don't "duck" this fact. I argue that vaporization of water is
insufficient for the creation of "air." It's only a small part of what
we breathe, given that over 99% of what we breathe is something else.

>> It never stops being water.
>
> Beeep. Wrong answer. Water can shed oxygen (do you understand H2O?).

Yes, if you subject it to electrolysis, which I've already mentioned.
Boiling water produces H2O vapor, not H2 and O.

>>> Evaporation occurs continuously everywhere. That "air" gets mixed in
>>> with the rest and that's what we breathe. There's no other scenario.
>>
>> Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon make up over 99% of the air we breathe.
>
> Depending on what "scientific" source you believe. And not all air is
> the same. The air is full of stuff. Furthermore oxygen levels were
> much higher thousands of years ago depending on what sources you
> believe.

All of which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Higher levels of oxygen millennia ago do not mean that boiled water
suddenly becomes unassociated hydrogen and oxygen.

>> It is incorrect to suggest that "air" gets mixed into water vapor.
>
> What?! You've said so yourself when you claimed evaporation rises into
> the upper atmosphere. What, it magically vanished from the surface and
> popped up on top of the atmosphere? You've turned to debating
> yourself!

I said that water vapor mixes with air. You're arguing the opposite.
It's a matter of capacity and quantity. You can't a large volume into
something of lesser volume.

>> To say "There's no other scenario" isn't scientific, it's dogma.
>
> B.S. Why can't you provide all the alternatives for us now?

Because I'm not an astrophysicist.

You argue that vaporized water produced our air. Yet water requires
the gases hydrogen and oxygen. They had to be around first before they
could combine to form water.

What you're arguing is potentially circular, and logically flawed.

>>>> Rewording your original premise makes you repetitive, not right.
>>
>>> Nor does it make me wrong. I've reworded for you to understand
>>> better.
>>
>> I understand that you're still making statements that are overly
>> simplified and scientifically incorrect.
>
> I'll ask you again to spell them out.

I have. Repeatedly.
>
>> There is, in fact, an argument to be made in your favor. But you're
>> not making it.
>
> B.S. I've backed myself up every time. It is you who shoots blanks.

Throwing insults isn't backing yourself up.

--
Derek

"Curiosity is one of the permanent and certain characteristics of a
vigorous mind." -- Samuel Johnson