Stone Age Sites Found Under North Sea (8,000BC)

University Of Newcastle On Tyne ^ | 9-12-2003

[esquirette]

Try this theory--there was a water canopy which encircled the earth, thus raising barometric pressure a lot, and filtering out damaging ultra violet rays, such that people lived a really long time. Then something happened, the fountains of the deep opened, and the water canopy in the sky rained down for forty days and nights, basically disappearing forever, the water level of the whole earth was raised several feet, and man no longer lived to be 500 years old.

[LaMudBug]

"There is certainly something going on inside the earth, causing earthquakes and such."

Yes, there is something going on that is called "Plate Tectonics." Do a google on that phrase and you will learn more than you presently know.

[Ophiucus]

Maybe they farted a lot.

Or had really big cows back then.

[Polybius]

Experts have discovered the first ever evidence of Stone Age settlements in the British North Sea, dating back as far as 10,000 years.

[Ophiucus]

These are found in several places around the world. submerged cities. Where'd all the extra water come from?

What "extra water"?

Coastlines change, landmasses shift, rise, and fall, the ice caps expand and contract. The Earth is a dynamic system.

[Havoc]

Nice general dodge. Where'd all the extra water come from?

[johnny7]

Any depth reported?

[blam]

"Any depth reported?"

Not that I've seen.

[katana]

I suspect you're being obtuse just to bait parents of young children like me who are used to explaining "how things work", but here goes.

There is no "extra" water. Since (at normal earth temperatures) water can be in the form of a solid, a liquid, or a gas the changes in the ocean depth just indicate that the balance among the three forms has changed. Less ice and/or lower atmospheric concentration of water vapor equals more liquid water in the system and higher shorelines. Add in the (very) occasional contribution of water from a Comet strike and plate tectonics with concurrent rises and falls in land levels, and there you have it. Earth history in a nutshell.

Now if you want an explanation of why some people think that climate change is new, that's more complicated since then we'd have to discuss socialist religion and the public school system.

[tubebender]

From the looks of the teeth of some Brits I'd say they are still living in the Stone Age...

[blam]

"From the looks of the teeth of some Brits I'd say they are still living in the Stone Age..."

Play nice.

[Havoc]

This assumes there have always been ice caps or that there has always been an excess of water. River channels under the ocean and extending well down toward the sea floor have never been explained. Like on the surface of Mars, it is significant; but, often sidestepped, ignored or otherwise avoided in science. From what I've read, no explanation given to date has held up under scrutiny. Mudflows do not create the friction needed to do the job. Currents are in the wrong direction and don't have the force needed, etc.

If they were worn by natural river flow as would have to be a primary consideration, then the problem presents itself. Where did the extra water mass come from. This is not a stand-alone issue. There is a vast tropical forest submerged under the northern ice sheets at roughly 1 mile below sea level if memory serves. An Ice mass that large would have to be explainable in some manner; but, that too is problematic in that in this case, we are talking not about pack ice like in ice bergs or snowcaps, etc. It's Rock ICE and apparently would have to have formed where it sits. Rock ice forms from sleet or freezing rain and does so rapidly. So where does several thousand cubic miles of rock ice come from if it precipitates into place and a forest preceeded it's location? If a forest was there before the ice, where did the excess mass of water come from that made the ice. Keep in mind that this much mass of ice would really screw with the planet if it were at the poles to begin with.

Where'd it come from.

[Havoc]

See #55

[Havoc]

Can you produce an ice comet large enough to explain the ice without destroying the planet in the impact? The size of mass you're talking about would facilitate not merely an extinction event, it would destroy the planet itself. Such a body (and we are talking about several thousand cubic miles, not a small thing like the ones in "Armageddon".. This is why I'm asking. Distribution of this mass of Ice to the poles would throw the planet off kilter and there's too much to merely be on Peaks of mountains and explain it. Geological maps show river tributaries running deep into the ocean. The ice sheets in Alaska/Canada and northern Russia are around a mile thick or more and both have complete tropical forests beneath them. That means at some point in History, the sea level was at least 1 full mile lower if not more. If it was warm enough for a tropical jungle to exist 1 mile below sea level, we're not talking about something existing during an ice age. So common sense tells us that something else was going on.

Where'd the extra water come from.

[Interesting Times]

The ice sheets in Alaska/Canada and northern Russia are around a mile thick or more and both have complete tropical forests beneath them. That means at some point in History, the sea level was at least 1 full mile lower if not more.

You have committed the logic error known to my people as the "does not follow."

Sea levels at the height of the last ice were about 400 feet lower than now, and some of the ice caps were two miles thick. I don't think a mysterious external source of water is needed to explain what happened.

Also, I haven't seen evidence that the *current* mile-thick ice-sheets are sitting on the remains of tropical forests -- can you point out a source?