Hard Evidence of Sudden Rise of Ocean Levels in Antiquity

So you're going to quibble over "1" meter, I'll give it to you. It's still only applicable to the 12 million sq. km. area figure and not the other 99.969% of the worlds oceans.

cormac

Hans: That is what the evidence points to, care to list all the ancient civilizations that started not on a river? It is going to be a short list. Now if we move up in time you can find them, but not in ancient times. Most civilizations were on rivers and those few that were island based had people on them smart enough to move inland as the water arose-like the Maltese



Hans: Those finds do no have the evidence behind them to allow anyone except the most ardent believers to say they are ‘mega-structures’, a crackpot might think the evidence is compelling, a knowledgeable person would not.




Hans: They seem to be doing fine by themselves, as a matter of fact all the evidence for this is coming from the scientists themselves......your comments are off the mark and just a bit silly, LOL



Hans: My pleasure TWISI, I’m always glad to provide information. However it’s not yours and BFFT theory, real scholars have proposed it. You are trying to use it provide a possible destructive agent for Atlantis. The event did happen, the effects are not fully understood at this time. People prior to Mazuekis had theories about this in the sixties.



Hans: Puzzled? Wrong about what? You have no evidence of a FAST, in human scale, water rise, you have no proof that civilizations were wiped out, you don’t know if there were any civilizations wiped out at all. What you do have is an indication of an event over NA. It will still take 10-15 years of work to fully investigate this. Remember science works by a methodology, they cannot just make stuff up and say its true, like yourself.





[edit on 8/4/09 by Hanslune]

Hans, my position is that the only reason you find evidence of 'inland' river habitation is two fold, one is that the few survivors of the cataclysm of the cometary impact that occurred in 12,900 BCE ended up there (on higher ground), and two that it is likely that during the last Ice Age the habitable regions of the earth, and where civs would most likely be found, was on the coastal regions as they were sea faring and could trade, move around the world etc. by sea.

It makes sense that is where civilizations would build-up and stay.




There are stones weighing tons that are clearly hewn-by-man on the ocean floor. What would you call them?



What kind of circular logic is that?

*shakes head sadly*

They are currently showing evidence of an impact that would have, at the very least, caused sudden massive NA extinctions at the beginning of the YD era, something you were pshawing just months ago if I remember correctly.

And now, after everyone gets accustomed to the idea that they have been WRONG the whole time they were insisting impact/catclysm was impossible, they will have to get into the serious data modeling of the various scenarios of what said cataclysm looked like. (See the discussion you/we are having on the "Global Flood Myth" thread).




First of all, his name is James Marusek and you should know that be now.
He is a Nuclear Physicist & Engineer. U.S. Department of the Navy (retired) and a reknowned and repsected cometary impact specialist that global governments consult for models of what various impacts would look like. He mused a few years back what an impact would over the NA ice shelf would cause and came up with a model that shows, almost exactly, what is being evidenced out, i.e. catalysm, but since his modeling skills are so advanced he was able to extrapolate a bit further than his unnamed 'peers from the 60's'.




See above!



edit: bb


[edit on 8/4/09 by Hanslune]

Howdy Twisi

Sorry for the long delay for a reply




Hans: Nope you might want to look at studies of Neolithic proto-farmers in those areas prior to that date. They were already there, those insitu cultures gave rise to River civilization along with influxes of people from (in Egypt peoples from the drying up Sahara) in Mesopotamia the Ubardians were merged/taken over by the Sumerians.



Hans: nope all evidence shows them being river based. They needed the water for agriculture. Again you are speculating without a basis of evidence. The present evidence points to the first civilizations arising along rivers. Why no signs of these cultures on the islands of the world? No shipwrecks, no physical evidence at all.



Hans: No they are not “clearly hewn-by-man, fringe believers just say that to create evidence for things that aren’t there. You might also want to look at the structures on the land just above the site. The same types of natural structures. Next look at the excellent work done on the Neolithic cultures there. I personally think the natural site of Y could have been modified by man but over the years no evidence has come in to support that.



Hans: Ah Twisi on one hand you are saying this, “would have occurred until certain segments of the academic community accepts that everything” so the scientists are evil and stupid, yet every single piece of evidence for the ET evident is coming from scientists. So are they evil and stupid or are they innovative researchers? Disagree is common within the scientific community.




Hans: I think the phrase would be years ….. the reason theories are changing is because more EVIDENCE is coming in. That is how science works. As you get more data the theories change. Why do you not understand this?




Hans: Here is what is happening (besides Twisi ego attacks)

1. There was, many years ago no evidence of this ET strike on NA.
2. Evidence was found that led some to theorize that a burst of particles had hit from a super nova. This was investigated but the evidence pointed elsewhere.
3. It pointed to a meteor, or ET strike
4. From that more information is being investigated, as more information is found the theories will probably change again, again normal science methodology.




Hans: Yep he’s one of the Scientists you hate and loath so much




Hans: Nope I read Firestones book before you had. My position has been that the ET occured and had X effects. What you and I disagree about is your trying to bend this fact to explain the destruction of Atlantis. The ET strike occurred, but their is zilch for evidence of Atlantis or event having anything to do with the destruction of coastal civilizations you seem to think existed.

Just repeating

Hans: You have no evidence of a FAST, in human scale, water rise, you have no proof that civilizations were wiped out, you don’t know if there were any civilizations wiped out at all. What you do have is an indication of an event over NA. It will still take 10-15 years of work to fully investigate this. Remember science works by a methodology, they cannot just make stuff up and say its true.

Evidence rules your idea of the ET strike destroying Atlantis is amusing but totally lacking in one major component, Atlantis.







[edit on 18/5/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Will you please stop with the Atlantis routine? Please? I have not uttered the word, YOU are always the one bringing it up and then stuffing it into my mouth.

Meanwhile, I have not read this thread in a bit and don't have the bandwidth to get into this with you again right now. But I will take a rain check!

How are you doing, Hans. It is good to see you return.

If i may, i would like to point out the two words bolded above. The reason being that often, these two words are substituted or interchanged. Sometimes it is due to simple oversight, other times it is due to an informal fallacy. I would like to ensure we are differentiating between the two.

From where I stand, it would seem that there IS evidence of not only a fairly rapid increase in water levels, but also for the loss of a rather sizable land mass that housed some level of civilization that was at least on par with the contemporaries of its day. Call it "Atlantis", call it "Lemuria"...whatever.

The evidence? I would say that the mythos of our ancestors would definitely be evidence.

However, you are correct in that it isn't proof. With proof being a relative term (having formerly "proven" things being over turned by new findings) it would seem that asking for proof is counter productive and known to fail.

Yes, i know you are scientifically minded...but understand that what TWISI (as well as myself and many others) seems to feel is that science is not bereft of value. Quite the opposite. However, it IS disconcerting to see the way scientists treat each other. And, to someone who is somewhat intelligent standing on the outside looking in, there are serious flaws and issues with the way that individuals can steer their fields.

reply to post by TheWayISeeIt

---

If you aren't looking for Atlantis what are you looking for? What evidence do you have that Atlantis doesn't exist? LOL


Howdy Big furry

We might find that evidence in the future but for the time being we are a bit short on evidence for an overwhelming rise of water that would have drowned a civilization(s). We a even shorter on evidence for such civilizations.

What conflict and human egos in Science! Well yeah like most other human endeavors. That is why evidence is king but then you have interpretation. Two sides can look at some data and get wildly different ideas as to what it means. My favorite memory is of a fist fight between Cypriote pottery experts over whether pottery known as Level VIIA was really VIIB or VIII. It was a good one.

An old teacher of one of my teachers was one of the few vocal critics of the Norse legends (This debate occurred in the 1920 to the 1960s) It was fought out in journals and conferences for decades. It came to a screaching stop when L'anse aux meadows was found and verified.

However for this one guy he looked at the Norse material and came up with a difference theory.

That native Americans WENT to Greenland and Iceland picked up Norse technology and came back to the NA but abandoned the Norse style colony because it just didn't work...........

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Not just Anchorage - I used to live in Cordova, AK, and what used to be beachfront property is now nearly 60 feet above sea level.

By the standards of the OP, that means that worldwide sea levels have DROPPED by twenty meters in the last 40 years. OMG!

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

---

Subsidence and rise of land both from earthquake and other factors makes figuring out what happen when and how fast difficult. Subsidence and rise can be very fast or extremely slow. As the inhabitats of Lisbon and Port Royal found out.