Need help parsing this video

[Travis Retriever]

Sorry to make an entirely new thread for this, but I didn't know of one where it would fit.
Anyways, I watched the below video regarding Thunderf00t's "Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 33)" by ScientificStandard
[yt]vuZyMMPROFU[/yt]
To be frank, I don't understand how his explanation is in any way relevant to Thunderf00t's point regarding conservation of energy (which, as far as I can tell with my limited knowledge of Physics) was pretty solid, or how he even come to a conclusion of "the water would actually reach a height roughly twice what thunderf00t calculated".
OK, call me crazy, but when you have results that violate the most basic laws, e.g. The Law of Conservation of Energy, that should send out a red flag.
I think he should have been it longer, and been more explicit in each step, as I have a hard time following him at times as well.

So what do you think?

[MrBogosity]

Problem #1: He didn't ASSUME that F2=mg; F2 DOES equal mg. That's the potential energy of any object in a gravitational environment.

Problem #2: "I have calculated that the water would be compressed..." Water, like all liquids, doesn't compress.

[Travis Retriever]

Problem #1: He didn't ASSUME that F2=mg; F2 DOES equal mg. That's the potential energy of any object in a gravitational environment.

Problem #2: "I have calculated that the water would be compressed..." Water, like all liquids, doesn't compress.

I figured something was up.
Regarding #1, he while it is true that there would be reaction forces if the rock was sitting stationary on top of the water (which should have been obvious, based on TF's images and analysis), I failed to see how that was relevant, as the rock would have had the same amount of potential energy regardless of the forces involved.
Also, if what he said was true about the force being less than what TF had used, by W = F * d (work, the change in kinetic energy equals force times distance applied) wouldn't that mean the water would have even less energy, not more to work with?

#2: While water does compress under severe enough pressure, I doubt it would compress to 4/5 it's original volume...
When I saw that asserted as calculated, I just thought to myself "Uh, yeah...whatever, citation needed, bro."
And again, because water doesn't compress that much.  Also, because total mechanical energy is assumed to be conserved (at least I think it is in these analyzes) I fail to see how that would make the water's height increase.

Yeah...I wonder if this is how biology majors feel when acosted by creationists, but don't know how to answer their questions?

[MrBogosity]

I think you can do something like 1% compression under enough pressure (the amount of force in question wouldn't be enough), but right after that the liquid water changes states. For the creationist to be correct, the water should have instantly turned into either ice or steam.