Gaylachless,so show us some stuff that might support that..also,you do know that the ice cap wasnt always there.right? :)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A462403
There is a whole body of evidence that suggests there may be more than meets the eye with the Antarctica/Atlantis theory, at least in as far as Antarctica once had a sub-tropical to temperate climate. For this to be the case, one of two things has to be true. Either the poles were far removed from where they are now, or Antarctica had to be far removed. There is real evidence that both of these conditions have been fulfilled during the course of this planet's history.
Let's consider the first possibility. It's a documented fact that the North Pole moves. Between 1900 and 1960, it moved ten feet in the direction of Greenland. That's 2.5 inches, or 60mm, a year. Between 1960 and 1968 the pole also moved another ten feet, this time at a rate of 100mm or four inches per year. Not only is the pole moving, but the rate of motion is increasing. In other words, it is accelerating. There is also a theory that suggests the North and South Poles have switched places during the history of the planet.
So on to the second condition. In Antarctica, very little flourishes. The plains of Antarctica can reach a brisk minus 90°C whilst the coastal areas reach a comparatively tropical minus 60°C. There are no indigenous land animals, although the coastline is home to seabird rookeries. The Encyclopaedia Britannica lists all the burgeoning plant life; 'Lichens, mosses and liverworts, moulds, yeasts, other fungi, algae and bacteria...'. In other words, as far as plant life goes, it resembles your kitchen when a lodger has been away for the weekend and no-one else has cleaned up after you.
500 miles north of the South Pole is the fossilised remains of a forest, 7,000 feet up Mount Ahernar. It is believed to be from the Permian period, 260 million years ago. In 1935, Admiral Byrd's South Pole expedition found fossilised leaves, stems and wood two miles above sea level on the side of Mount Weaver. The Russians have found evidence of tropical flora dating back to the early Tertiary period. In 1990, fossils from a deciduous beach forest were found 250 miles from the South Pole – fossils that were only two or three million years old. In 1986, fossilised wood and plants were discovered that showed some places on the continent were ice-free as little as 100,000 years ago. The University of Illinois says that sedimentary core samples show that rivers were running to the sea in 4,000BC.
In the Arctic Circle the story is the same. Fossilised palm leaves have been found, as have fossilised crustaceans that can only survive in tropical waters. These were found at Spitzbergen, which today is ice-bound for ten months of the year and cannot be reached by sea. The palm leaves and marine fossils show that a sea that had a comparable temperature to the Caribbean today once surrounded this island. On Baffin Island, 900 miles from the North Pole, alder and birch remains found in peat show that the island had a much warmer, temperate climate only 30,000 years ago.
These plants cannot grow at the temperatures that these regions experience today. They cannot grow in the regimes of 24-hour periods of darkness followed by 24-hour periods of daylight. Either the poles were in different places than they are now, or these lands were in different geographical locations than they are now.
If the Antarctic continent had once been positioned much further north than it is now – say, in the middle of the Atlantic – would it have been able to support civilisation? Well, it fits the known criteria. It had a stable congenial climate for at least 10,000 years. It has vast mountain ranges and huge river systems that flowed across the long flat plains. It has enough room – it's about the size of the continental United States. It only had to have been positioned 2,000 miles further north for it to have enjoyed a Mediterranean climate, making it a very amenable place to live.
