Quote:Actually you are unable to worship God without Him first renewing your heart

Just love to make crap up as you go along don't ya? Hey, does this mean killing animals too? Am I also required to sing religious songs with a bunch of fucking choir boys as well? What else should we make up?
Who are you kidding mate!

Quote: so I am not surprised at all that you won't worship Him no matter how you "justify" it

I won't worship something...that doesn't even exist! But even if such a twat did exist. Why stroke his over-sized ego?
What is the purpose for god to have glory? Why? What's the point?

Quote:You may think it's sad, but that's your own opinion.

I'm not the only one who think it's sad.

(October 18, 2010 at 3:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ok, all of the views on the isotropic propagation of light use the Calculated Definition of Time. This is a viewponit of time that did not come about until the early 20th century (maybe late 19th). So scripture does not use this definition of time, it uses the observational definition of time. Under this definition of time light does move an-isotropically. So we are not playing with the speed of light so much as we are just defining time differently. So if all the light beams for the stars reached Earth on the 4th day of creation, this would mean that God created these stars on the 4th day. Even though, by using the calculated definition of time He would have created those same stars a longer period of time ago depending on how many light years the object is away from Earth. Scientists today will still jump back and forth between the two defintions of time, when naming cosmic events they use observed time (supernova 1987a), when you ask them when they believe the event "really" took place they will use the calcuated definition of time. So to argue against the Biblical account of creation with the calculated definition of time is in error because the account is not written using that definition of time. Does that make more sense?

No not really, To compare it to scientists who label a cosmic event by giving it the date it was observed is irrelevent. All that means is that it was spotted then.

I"m not quite sure of the point you trying to make. Are you saying that the universe wasn't created in six literal days?

Quote:As to the question, "when science contradicts the Bible?"- I think I answered that in a different thread, but I can do it again if you'd like. Well I think most of us can agree that Science does not deal with absolutes, right? So I do not believe you can use something that is non-absolute to truly contradict something that makes absolute claims. It is very important to also read scripture while paying attention to when it is describing an event that is supposed to be natural, and when the event is supposed to be super-natural. If a virgin did give birth it would be a super-natural or miraculous event, I think we would all agree to this. The Bible describes this as a suepr-natural and miraculous event so I don't think it is appropriate to argue against this event as if it were completely natural. Now if you have a completley naturalistic worldview then I could see why you would not believe this story because it is impossible according to yoru worldview, but that is more just proof that people have different worldviews than it is proof the biblical account never happened. I do not believe science contradicts the Bible though because of the nature of evidence and how it is interpreted.

So when god is quoted in the bible as stating that bats are birds and science claims that they are actually mammals who is wrong?

Quote:As to the question, "when science contradicts the Bible?"- I think I answered that in a different thread, but I can do it again if you'd like. Well I think most of us can agree that Science does not deal with absolutes, right? So I do not believe you can use something that is non-absolute to truly contradict something that makes absolute claims. It is very important to also read scripture while paying attention to when it is describing an event that is supposed to be natural, and when the event is supposed to be super-natural. If a virgin did give birth it would be a super-natural or miraculous event, I think we would all agree to this. The Bible describes this as a suepr-natural and miraculous event so I don't think it is appropriate to argue against this event as if it were completely natural. Now if you have a completley naturalistic worldview then I could see why you would not believe this story because it is impossible according to yoru worldview, but that is more just proof that people have different worldviews than it is proof the biblical account never happened. I do not believe science contradicts the Bible though because of the nature of evidence and how it is interpreted.

Such a typical bullshit religious come back. "If it can be proven by science to be wrong it was a super-natural event and therefore science dosen't come into it. However if something in the bible is strengthened by science then that only proves the bible is truthful."

You mate, are brainwashed.

Quote:Statler Waldorf Wrote:
Ok, all of the views on the isotropic propagation of light use the Calculated Definition of Time. This is a viewponit of time that did not come about until the early 20th century (maybe late 19th). So scripture does not use this definition of time, it uses the observational definition of time. Under this definition of time light does move an-isotropically. So we are not playing with the speed of light so much as we are just defining time differently. So if all the light beams for the stars reached Earth on the 4th day of creation, this would mean that God created these stars on the 4th day. Even though, by using the calculated definition of time He would have created those same stars a longer period of time ago depending on how many light years the object is away from Earth. Scientists today will still jump back and forth between the two defintions of time, when naming cosmic events they use observed time (supernova 1987a), when you ask them when they believe the event "really" took place they will use the calcuated definition of time. So to argue against the Biblical account of creation with the calculated definition of time is in error because the account is not written using that definition of time. Does that make more sense?

What utter crap. As I pointed out, science uses the operational definition of time, as does THE REST OF THE PLANET. Making up your own definitions (which are actually not yours, but those created by the religious folk at Answers in Genesis, though you never cited them as your source) to fit your goofy world view only makes your goofy world view appear, well, even more goofy. At least 99.99% of the world's scientists accept the current definition of the veolocity of light as being the correct one. An so you would have us believe that the nut cases at the Creation Museum are right while the rest of the world is wrong. That makes you, sir, a crackpot. Congratulations.

If I have missed the answer I was promised to Post #120 in the thread "How Old is the Earth?" I would be grateful if anyone could point me to it.

(October 15, 2010 at 5:26 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Yes I believe that creation happened in six 24 hour days on Earth.

Why do you believe that?

(October 15, 2010 at 6:22 pm)Ace Wrote: God is all-powerful right? Well why would he take six fucking days to create everything if he could do it instantly?

I concur. That seems to be the stumbling block of his whole argument: Why 144 hours when he could've done it all in an instant?

(October 18, 2010 at 3:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Did God ordain the fall to occur? Yes, however...

To summarise your lengthy essay: God is morally bankrupt.

Quote:So if all the light beams for the stars reached Earth on the 4th day of creation, this would mean that God created these stars on the 4th day.

You do realise that all the elements above Hydrogen came from dead stars? Star formation logically comes long before planet formation.

(October 18, 2010 at 4:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: We see this when God hardens Pharoah's heart, he hardens his heart but still punishes him for it.

To summarise your lengthy essay: God is an evil tyrant.

Quote:Yes the number 7 is a symbol for perfection, this is why 777 is used a lot to represent God and 666 is used to represent imperfection to the highest degree.

007 is the number that represents perfection stat, not magic man.

(October 18, 2010 at 10:25 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:
Wow. Why indeed statler? why indeed? What physicists? Where?
I don't know what the fallacy of this... thing is that you've presented to me off the top of my head - I'm guessing Non Sequitur, as your question clearly has nothing to do with whether or not it's made up. It certainly doesn't prove it's not made up. The fact that an equation exists doesn't mean it's used in the manner you describe.

Haha, well I guess the units of miles are just made up by Creationists since there are equations used to convert from miles to kilometers used by everyone, but this apparently doesn't prove anything according to you. Read a physics book (above the high school level) and they will all have the equation I just gave you for converting from observational time to calculated time. I got that equation out of my college textbook "Physics: for Scientists and Engineers" (not youtube lol). I can even show you how to do the equation if you need me to.

Quote:
Really? The earth's mantle is holding ten times the amount of water needed to cover every land mass on the entire planet?
Where, Statler? Where is the water in the mantle? How is the water staying there and not coming up from the mantle, given that any four year old can recognize that rocks sink and water goes up - especially if the earth-balloon popped and all the water escaped?
Is the earth actually a giant sponge and god squeezed it the one time until all the continents disappeared?
Where did the water come out since the entire planet was drowned in water in less than two months?

Oh brother. The water is contained within the mineral structures in the mantle. It's kept in the mantle the same way ground water is kept under ground. You really need to understand what Creationists believe before you try and argue against them. The flood caused drasstic plate tectonices which formed a lot of our current mountain ranges. This would have also caused many of our deepest oceanic trenches. Level these out, and you even have enough water on Earth today to cover the entire planet. So we would not need a lot of water from the mantle, it's just one working model that makes sense. Your reasoning is not even in line with modern Science, many Scientists today believe there was a global flood on Mars despite there not being any visible water on Mars (Reuters, Mars Calamity May have Created Conditions for Life. New York Times, 16 March, 2001- not a youtube video lol) . So a lack of water obviously is not grounds for denying a flood anyways. It's just an added bonus that we have enough water on Earth.

Quote: So let me get this straight - a 600 year old man and his family built a professional stadium-sized wooden ship and scoured the planet of two of every 'kind' of creature, including billions of creatures that are now considered extinct, and one human family was able to
1) get two of every 'kind' of creature on the entire planet - including those from other continents?
2) provide for the housing, medical, sanitation, and dietary needs (including the HIGHLY specialized needs of certain creatures)?
3) transport these creatures multiple times from all locations around the planet to his ark?
4) survive?
All of this within a human lifetime and more?

Not a stadium sized ship, but a ship very large. One much like the wooden ships used in 15th Century China by Chang Ho that were sea worthy and used the same techiques used by Noah.

Would not have had to get creatures from every continent because I already told you that Creationists believe drastic plate tectonics were a result of the flood. Would not have had to go and "get" all the creatures becasue scripture says the animals came to him. The dietary needs of animals are not actually as specialized as you make them out to be. Pretty much all animals (even snakes) can survive on a vegetarian diet. So again you are arguing against things that creationists do not believe and acting like you are accomplishing something.



Evolution is fine when it is recognized for what it really is. A shifting and/or reduction of genetic information to produce different species which are just different expressions of the same kind of animal. Rather than the incorrect view that it can actually increase genetic information and provide a mechanism for all life on Earth to orignate from a single celled ancestor.

An Ice Age would have shortly followed the flood providing a means for the animals to re-populate the continents. This would not have been hard to do at all considering they would have had a 1000 years to do so. Wolves were re-introduced in Yellowstone 15 years ago. Wolves have now been spotted in Southern Oregon. So in 15 years that small initial pack has grown and has travelled over 1000 miles. This is with competition from species that already inhabit Southern and Easter Oregon. So the animals would have dispersed very quickly and could have easily covered the necessary ground.

Quote: And most of all - when the flood was over, all of these creatures somehow returned to their natural locations despite having no signs of mass floods or drownings or signs of a mass extinction of any kind on a global scale within the last 10,000 years as though they'd never left?

Creationists don't use your evolutionary time scale, so I am not sure why you keep using it to argue against their position. The fossil record shows lots of animals that were buried alive by flooding and the order of animals in the record is exactly what we would expect to see.

Quote: Only if you're utterly science-illiterate, sure.

Assertion, adds nothing to your argument.

Quote: You certainly like to say that, but I actually understand the science behind it.
There are trees that are still around that are older than the biblical account of genesis.

You obviously do not understand the Science behind it since this is a well known observed fact that trees do this. Trees have no idea how long a year is, they only react to the climates and angle of the sun to the Earth. Certain drought climates can "trick" a tree into adding multiple rings in a year. So this inductive form of dating can be very erroneous.



You can use youtube if you'd like, but it has never been and never will be a scholarly source. The only thing you have proven with it is that any old fool with video editing software can make a "science" video that you will in turn use in a forum.




Nah, the people on the secular review boards are just as biased and pulling for a certain side as you are. Don't give them more credit than they deserve.

Quote: In other words, light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second not because a group of people agreed to it, but because it's been tested repeatedly with dogged determination and ever-more sophisticated and precise machines and techniques until we could get that figure down to the nanometer.

Again, creationists agree on the speed of light. How can you argue against a position you clearly do not understand?

Quote: All you're doing is convincing me further about how easily the ideas behind your inane theory can be torn apart if subjected to scrutiny and I have every reason to believe it already has been when I simply reminded you of Einsten's special relativity.

Again, you have proven you do not understand the ideas behind my "theory" so how can you approprately not agree with something you clearly do not understand?

Quote: That's because your assumptions are wrong.

Assertion, adds nothing to your argument. Your assumptions are wrong, there I did it back at you.

Quote: Wow. A creationist who doesn't understand evolution. How ... what's the word that's opposite of surprising?
Boring. That's right. Boring.
The first foundational falsehood of creationism (among more than a dozen or two).

More youtube videos huh? Who peer reivewed this video? I think your real beef with me is that I understand your theory better than you do and I know its limitations. You do not believe it has limitations, it truly has become your God. That is sad.

---

(October 18, 2010 at 10:27 pm)orogenicman Wrote:

Quote:Meh, that's kind of a typical response used by Evolutionists when one of their own marches out of step. "Well the Journal he was published in was not really that great", or "Just because he disagrees does not prove anything" or even, "That's not what he meant when he said that". Unfortunately all three of those approaches are used in this talkorigins article. Fact of the matter is, there are less "vestigial" organs and structures today than there were in the past and creationists have found functions for every example evolutionists try and use. They are not good evidence for common descent. It's an out-dated argument and it should die off along with the pepper moth one.

If you had actually read the article in its entirety, you wouldn't be responding with an argument that "creationists have found functions for every example evolutionists try and use", since, as was aptly pointed out via numerous sources, a vestigial organ doesn't have to be functionless to be vestigial. And yes, in fact, the some journals are better than others with regard to peer review, so the argument as to the journal that carried the paper is a valid one. Not all scientific journals are equal. If his article was actually a big deal in science circles, he'd have gotten it published in Science or Nature.

I actually did read it in its entirety. If vestigial organs don't require non-functionality then how do you know they are vestigial? :-) Then this just becomes an arbritrary game of "Well this structure is not functional enough, and some animals also have a version of it so it must be vestigial." It's all based on bad logic and erroneous conclusions. Men have nipples, they are less functional than women's, did men evolve from women? Of course not, so let's not apply this same bad logic to other cases. It is still better evidence for de-evolution than evolution anyways.

I know several Creation guys who have been published in both Nature and Science, they must be legit now.

---

(October 18, 2010 at 10:30 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: All right, I take it that you take the Bible literally, presumably saying that the earth is roughly 6000 years old. According to the Bible, it took place some 1600 or so years after the creation, and if Ussher's work is still used around Creationist circles, it happened around 2348 BC. Here's the Problem: The great Pyramid of Giza was built about 200 years before that, and somehow remained pretty much intact; come to think of it, it appeared that the entirety of Egyptian Culture remained intact. Granted, there was probably a dynastic change around that same time, with the Pharaoh Teti, but if you're going to say that one of Noah's sons took over Egypt and somehow rebuilt the entire civilisation from scratch in the matter of a few years, why would he have recreated their old religion, since monotheism wouldn't come to Egypt again for at least a millennium?

And for that matter, can you explain to us what actually constitutes a Biblical "Kind" anyway? And even then, I don't think all the speciation necessary would be possible in just a few thousand years. Millions I can guess, but less than 5000? If speciation happened so quick, people wouldn't be so quick to deny Darwin.

If a flood took place, then that pyramid would not date to being as old as you just claimed it was because the methods used to date that pyramid assume no flood took place. So to argue against the flood by using dating methods that assume no flood is inappropriate.

---

I disagree, I was using an equation that is pretty common knowledge in Physics. I would not expect someone to cite their source if they used the equation "rate= distance/time", unless it was a piece of formal writing. That souce was actually not AIG. I actually found the equation in my copy of "Physics: For Scientists and Engineers". You need to stop pasting articles into your responses, it's against forum rules.

---

(October 19, 2010 at 12:06 am)Minimalist Wrote: Sucks to be them, huh?

Just because he claims to be a Geologist doesn't mean you have to kiss up to him, he is not inerrant. His article even pointed out that the Mantle containing water is a "popular belief amongst Geophyscits". You really think one article in Nature is enough to over-turn the popular thinking on the subject? Wishful thinking. Besides I already pointed out that this was just one model used by Creationists, other models also work and they use the amount of water we have on Earth today. I also pointed out that absense of water is no reason to doubt a flood, modern Scientists today believe a large flood happened on Mars and how much water can we see on Mars today?

---

(October 19, 2010 at 4:59 am)Ace Wrote:

Quote:Actually you are unable to worship God without Him first renewing your heart

Just love to make crap up as you go along don't ya? Hey, does this mean killing animals too? Am I also required to sing religious songs with a bunch of fucking choir boys as well? What else should we make up?
Who are you kidding mate!

Quote: so I am not surprised at all that you won't worship Him no matter how you "justify" it

I won't worship something...that doesn't even exist! But even if such a twat did exist. Why stroke his over-sized ego?
What is the purpose for god to have glory? Why? What's the point?

Quote:You may think it's sad, but that's your own opinion.

I'm not the only one who think it's sad.

Didn't make it up, that's the reformed view on the subject. I am just going to ignore your posts until you start acting in a more civil manner.

---

(October 19, 2010 at 7:50 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(October 18, 2010 at 3:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ok, all of the views on the isotropic propagation of light use the Calculated Definition of Time. This is a viewponit of time that did not come about until the early 20th century (maybe late 19th). So scripture does not use this definition of time, it uses the observational definition of time. Under this definition of time light does move an-isotropically. So we are not playing with the speed of light so much as we are just defining time differently. So if all the light beams for the stars reached Earth on the 4th day of creation, this would mean that God created these stars on the 4th day. Even though, by using the calculated definition of time He would have created those same stars a longer period of time ago depending on how many light years the object is away from Earth. Scientists today will still jump back and forth between the two defintions of time, when naming cosmic events they use observed time (supernova 1987a), when you ask them when they believe the event "really" took place they will use the calcuated definition of time. So to argue against the Biblical account of creation with the calculated definition of time is in error because the account is not written using that definition of time. Does that make more sense?

No not really, To compare it to scientists who label a cosmic event by giving it the date it was observed is irrelevent. All that means is that it was spotted then.

I"m not quite sure of the point you trying to make. Are you saying that the universe wasn't created in six literal days?

Quote:As to the question, "when science contradicts the Bible?"- I think I answered that in a different thread, but I can do it again if you'd like. Well I think most of us can agree that Science does not deal with absolutes, right? So I do not believe you can use something that is non-absolute to truly contradict something that makes absolute claims. It is very important to also read scripture while paying attention to when it is describing an event that is supposed to be natural, and when the event is supposed to be super-natural. If a virgin did give birth it would be a super-natural or miraculous event, I think we would all agree to this. The Bible describes this as a suepr-natural and miraculous event so I don't think it is appropriate to argue against this event as if it were completely natural. Now if you have a completley naturalistic worldview then I could see why you would not believe this story because it is impossible according to yoru worldview, but that is more just proof that people have different worldviews than it is proof the biblical account never happened. I do not believe science contradicts the Bible though because of the nature of evidence and how it is interpreted.

So when god is quoted in the bible as stating that bats are birds and science claims that they are actually mammals who is wrong?

God created everything in six literal days using observed time. Pretty simple. The stars were observed to be created on day four. Just like that supernova was observed to happen in 1987.

Depends on how God defines birds now doesn't it? Not even sure what passage you are referring to, you should let me know.

---

(October 19, 2010 at 9:51 am)Skipper Wrote:

Quote:As to the question, "when science contradicts the Bible?"- I think I answered that in a different thread, but I can do it again if you'd like. Well I think most of us can agree that Science does not deal with absolutes, right? So I do not believe you can use something that is non-absolute to truly contradict something that makes absolute claims. It is very important to also read scripture while paying attention to when it is describing an event that is supposed to be natural, and when the event is supposed to be super-natural. If a virgin did give birth it would be a super-natural or miraculous event, I think we would all agree to this. The Bible describes this as a suepr-natural and miraculous event so I don't think it is appropriate to argue against this event as if it were completely natural. Now if you have a completley naturalistic worldview then I could see why you would not believe this story because it is impossible according to yoru worldview, but that is more just proof that people have different worldviews than it is proof the biblical account never happened. I do not believe science contradicts the Bible though because of the nature of evidence and how it is interpreted.

Such a typical bullshit religious come back. "If it can be proven by science to be wrong it was a super-natural event and therefore science dosen't come into it. However if something in the bible is strengthened by science then that only proves the bible is truthful."

You mate, are brainwashed.

I think yoru response is B.S. actually. Where in the Bible does it say creation happened by natural maens and where does it say that the virgin birth happened by natural means? So why argue against these things with natural science? You are arguing against claims the Bible does not make.

---

Haha, well you said in your introduction you like to keep things civil. I guess lying is not against your Atheistic Worlview huh?
I didn't realize that Geologists were experts in the time/light model. The defintion was not made up by AIG, nor did I get the definition from AIG. They just know enough about Physics there to know that there are different ways of defining time. Appealing to popular belief and Scientific Consensus are both fallacies, but I am sure you were already aware of this since you claim to be a Geologist. I noticed that you did not actually present an argument against mine, you just resorted to a bunch of personal attacks and then committed a few fallacies and were then satisfied.
You are right, Science does use the calculated definition of time (post 19th Century), however scripture was not written in the 20th century. So it of course uses the observational definition of time. Like I said before, arguing against an account that uses observational time by using calculated time is ridiculous. If someone says they saw a supernova happen in 1506, you would not tell them, "you are lying! you didn't observe that in 1506!". Nope, you would trust their claim and then calculated when it "realy" happened in calculated time by using the distance the object is from Earth. I thought this was all fairly simple, but I guess I was mistaken.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh brother. The water is contained within the mineral structures in the mantle. It's kept in the mantle the same way ground water is kept under ground.

Really? There's enough water "in the mantle" to flood the planet with SIX MILES of water? This is absurd in the extreme. You have a source for this steaming pile of bullshit?

Quote:The flood caused drasstic plate tectonices which formed a lot of our current mountain ranges.

Source for this crap?

Quote:This would have also caused many of our deepest oceanic trenches.

Source? Or do you just make unsubstantiated assertions?

Quote:Level these out, and you even have enough water on Earth today to cover the entire planet. So we would not need a lot of water from the mantle,

How do you figure this? You would need enough water to cover the highest mountains. Mt. Everest is nearly six miles high! You would need an unbelievable amount of water!

Quote:it's just one working model that makes sense.

Sure. If you throw your brain out the window.

Quote: Your reasoning is not even in line with modern Science, many Scientists today believe there was a global flood on Mars despite there not being any visible water on Mars (Reuters, Mars Calamity May have Created Conditions for Life. New York Times, 16 March, 2001- not a youtube video lol) . So a lack of water obviously is not grounds for denying a flood anyways. It's just an added bonus that we have enough water on Earth.

There would be archaeological and geological evidence of a global flood within the past 5,000 years. There is none. But please feel free to show us any.

Quote:Not a stadium sized ship, but a ship very large.

Yes, so large that Noah and his ilk could not possibly have built it at that time. They did not have the tools necessary to cut and hew the gigantic timbers that would have been necessary to build the keel! They also would not have been able to waterproof the thing. It would have leaked like a sieve and sunk!

Quote:Would not have had to get creatures from every continent because I already told you that Creationists believe drastic plate tectonics were a result of the flood.

Which no legitimate scientist would agree with.

Quote: Would not have had to go and "get" all the creatures becasue scripture says the animals came to him.

Yeah, "scripture" says a lot of stupid shit, doesn't it? So how long did Noah have to wait before the penguins could waddle up from the South Pole?

Quote:The dietary needs of animals are not actually as specialized as you make them out to be.

Carnivores need meat. Herbivores need vegetation. Where did Noah get the meat? Especially at a time before refrigeration?

Quote:An Ice Age would have shortly followed the flood providing a means for the animals to re-populate the continents.

How would an ice age provide a means for the animals to repopulate the continents? this makes no sense.

Quote:This would not have been hard to do at all considering they would have had a 1000 years to do so. Wolves were re-introduced in Yellowstone 15 years ago. Wolves have now been spotted in Southern Oregon. So in 15 years that small initial pack has grown and has travelled over 1000 miles. This is with competition from species that already inhabit Southern and Easter Oregon. So the animals would have dispersed very quickly and could have easily covered the necessary ground.

Doesn't explain how kangaroos got to Australia. Or Tasmanian Devils got to New Zealand.

Quote: The fossil record shows lots of animals that were buried alive by flooding and the order of animals in the record is exactly what we would expect to see.

How can you possibly determine from a fossil that the creature was "buried alive by flooding"? Source?

Quote:Didn't make it up, that's the reformed view on the subject.

Yeah-right.

Quote: I am just going to ignore your posts until you start acting in a more civil manner.

Well...I'm just going to ignore your posts until they start making sense.
Oh and well done on answering my latest question I posed....not!

(October 19, 2010 at 7:00 pm)Thor Wrote:

(October 19, 2010 at 6:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh brother. The water is contained within the mineral structures in the mantle. It's kept in the mantle the same way ground water is kept under ground.

Really? There's enough water "in the mantle" to flood the planet with SIX MILES of water? This is absurd in the extreme. You have a source for this steaming pile of bullshit?

Physicist here. Please note that the volume of water to flood the planet would entail a significant fraction of mass. Mass that simply does not "go away".

We know from gravity and the radius of the earth that the density must consider not just rocks but molten nickel/iron. To add in water into the mantle, something pointlessly ridiculous, would undermine the mass of the Earth considering the density/mass of water you are talking about, to the degree that the Earth must have a higher density mantle/core if there is additional mass (of this mythical water).

Meaning higher density rocks than can ever be formed by plate tectonics and convection.

Plainly put, you cannot have something from nothing and back again.

If we have water sinking into the mantle, then the pressure and heat at those levels will dissociate lighter, less dense molecules - they will rise to the surface again and be released. Thus keeping water on the surface.

You can't have water in the mantle like you're suggesting.