The [ocean level] rise [of 400 feet, 15,000 - 30,000 years ago] clearly happened.
That is your speculation, and it sounds pretty WACKY to any rational, independently thinking, critically reasoning adult. Naturally, you are welcome to any beliefs you wish, but if you wish for others to similarly believe your speculation, you must support your affirmative claim and explain why a rational adult should believe your speculation. The ball is in your court.
Of recent, there have been found prehistoric human settlements underwater in places like the North Sea which is relatively shallow.
How does sunken terrain translate into ocean-level
rise? When you wrote that "[the ocean] hasn't risen by any significant amount and ocean rise, as of now is a non-issue" did you really mean that the ocean is clearly rising because look at Venice, Italy? Venice is still sinking (slowly, just under 1mm/year) and will one day be submerged entirely. Is the ocean rising, but only in Venice and wherever the land is sinking?
We know from studying the existing sea bottom that the English Channel once had a land bridge between England and France that failed and caused a massive flood event.
Who is the "we" who know this? The people who watched the land bridge failure on YouTube and witnessed the massive flood event? Can you attach the link for the video? Thanks.
I'm going to give you a hint: The
English Channel land bridge theory is just someone's speculation that is
one of countless possible explanations for the geological evidence discovered. Your rush to declare one team leader's musings over the unobserved, distant past as "what we know" is rather silly. Of course, if you can dig up that video, I'll gladly change my tune.
As for the water, since there was about 4 to 6 times the amount of water trapped in glaciers and ice then,
This is where you get to explain why any rational adult should believe this. At the moment, I don't.
and we know the extent of the glaciation from geologic remains today,
Ummmm, no. Nobody knows how much of how many glaciers there have been, or when exactly there were glaciers.
Basically, my issue is with your claims of omniscience about the unobserved, distant past. You treat the speculations of others, even totally wild and WACKY speculations, as "what we know." As all affirmative claims, you bear the full burden of supporting these claims you are making, and you know that you can't because no one is omniscient, and no one's speculation about the past can ever be verified.
That there was clearly a period of massive glaciation and extensive ice--far, far more than today--that once covered a considerable portion of both hemispheres that is no longer there and that ice turned into water and caused ocean rise.
Your theorem has been clearly stated. Now explain why a rational adult should believe this. It should be a piece of cake, right?
