[Updated May 2018]
Pangaea. The one, original continent. The one all our current ones came from. But it is a fantasy.
Take a look at this image. You’ll recognize all our continents. That should amaze you. And see all those fudge zones? THAT should trouble you.
Because the continents have not always been as they are now. The center of the US was all ocean at one point – maybe more than one – since the “time of Pangaea.” There are fossils in the highest reaches of all the current mountain chains. The Amazon basin is mostly river delta – especially that point that tucks so nicely into the western coast of Africa. Heck, even that part of Africa is the delta of the Congo River. S that “match up” with the western coast of Africa? Just a chimera in time, a coincidence. And notice the FUDGE ZONE. It works FINE, if we fudge it! Had we had maps of the Earth 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were disappearing, that coastline would have been far different, and that match up would be far less suggestive of Pangaea. But the scientists build maps like the one here and make careers based on nothing more substantial than what religions are based on – the belief that what they are taught is true.
For example, the oldest bedrock geological formations in Florida are only AT MOST about 58 million years old (Eocene – 37 to 58 Mya). But look at that map. What is any part of 58 million-year-old Florida DOING there? It may all look good in the big picture, but the devil is in the details. The fudge zones – look at all of them. Give me enough fudge zones and I can probably show a whole lot of things.
Yes, scientists can get fooled. They admit now that there is no aether, yet 130 years ago you’d have been considered a fool for suggesting differently. Alfred Wegener himself, the brain behind continental drift, 100 years ago, was himself considered a fool.
Just because we can detect that continents are moving does not in any way dictate that they all had one common source. In fact, according to the common thinking Pangaea was itself not the beginning. I looked it up just now. Pangaea, they say, was just a temporary collection of continents (from about 600-540 million years ago, its predecessor, Pannotia existed, only to be broken up into what they have named Laurentia, Baltica and Gondwanaland. Not until about 440 million BCE did Pangaea begin to form.) And before Pannotia, there were other “supercontinents,” according to the present thinking.
(Wikipedia) …Baltica, Laurentia, and Avalonia all came together by the end of the Ordovician to form a minor supercontinent called Euramerica or Laurussia, closing the Iapetus Ocean. The collision also resulted in the formation of the northern Appalachians. Siberia sat near Euramerica, with the Khanty Ocean between the two continents. While all this was happening, Gondwana drifted slowly towards the South Pole. This was the first step of the formation of Pangaea.
The Ordovician began 488 million years ago and lasted until 445 million years ago. Let’s keep that age in mind.
(Wikipedia) …Western Kazakhstania collided with Baltica in the Late Carboniferous, closing the Ural Ocean between them, and the western Proto-Tethys in them (Uralian orogeny), causing the formation of the Ural Mountains, and the formation of the supercontinent of Laurasia. This was the last step of the formation of Pangaea.
The end of the Carboniferous was 326 million years ago. Let’s also keep that age in mind. We now have an age of Pangaea – from 445 million to 326 million years ago.
Understand that all these numbers are not ones read off a calendar or an eon-clock. They are all simply best guesses, based on circumstantial evidence. Do I have better evidence than the scientists? No. I have the same evidence (actually I have much less, since I have not studied it as thoroughly); I just interpret it differently and point out where they seem to have conflicts that tell me their thinking is flawed.
No theory is true which is internally inconsistent.
You cannot have ocean bottom or sea coast fossils at the highest elevations of the Alps or the Himalayas and then tell us that the current continental coasts (or even the continental shelves) can be pieced together at some time previous to when those fossils now deep inland were formed. Which point in time are you observing from? It will always distort what you perceive.
They point at the density of continental underlying rock and that it is lighter than that rock on the bottom of the oceans. They then tell us that the lighter continental rock has been floating on top of the denser oceanic rock, like rafts or logs on a lake. Oh, yeah? Then how did the middle of the US become ocean bottom?
They point out the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and tell us that its volcanic activity is an upwelling of magma pushing up into a crack and forcing the two sides apart, like a wedge. Along with that, they “map out” how these twos sides have valleys tracing in almost straight lines away from this crack. Look at any map of the Atlantic Ocean bottom (such as on Google Earth). You can’t miss them. They are as unnatural looking as an I-Pod would be if found caught in between the teeth of a T-Rex. Nature does not make straight lines on geographical scales. Those lines are from computer models.
Oh? They’ve mapped it all out from satellite sensors? The ones that sense the height of the water and project that as the contour of the ocean bottom? That is all just someone’s wet dream. That technology might as well be called the “Princess and the Pea” theory. The contour of the bottom of a shallow body of water, say a stream, does push up the water’s surface. To suggest that it does so for water that averages several thousands of feet deep is not tenable. A point on the bottom pushes up in a somewhat spherical shape, like pushing up on the bottom of a mattress (like the pea in the story) makes a bulge much bigger than the area being pushed on the bottom. And the sphere/bulge has a radius roughly the diameter of the depth at that point. Take one rock alone on the bottom and one might, with very extremely precise instruments, tell there is a bump of some sort on the bottom. Take the billions and billions of fluctuations of the bottom and have their surface bulges interfere, and that makes for an impossible reading of the meaning of the surface irregularities. Further, add in the currents, and the pattern gets indistinct even more so, by a magnitude or more (ten-fold or more). Now add in the effects of the varying winds, and the patterns become even more unreadable. And then they tell us that they can tell what the bottom is like, under thousands of feet of water. Fat chance. Yes, they get something – their models HAVE to come up with something; otherwise they wouldn’t have jobs.
I suggest that such technology is overstepping its capabilities, and that the scientists reading them are reading things into the data that simply does not exist.
This is in argument that the maps of the ocean bottom are not real, but are instead the output from a GIGO program – garbage in – garbage out. It sounds like a nice theory and a nice programming exercise – but I posit that the output is worthless. Especially when I see straight line canyons on ocean maps. Shame on them. As soon as they saw straight lines, they should have known that their results were crap. That they didn’t is shameful. That they then published such crap and put it onto maps? Beyond belief.
So all that addresses only one little portion of their floating continents concept.
YES, continents move. Does that mean they all started out in one place? No. Pedestrians walking down a sidewalk are moving. Can we claim that since all are currently walking in the same direction that they all started out eating breakfast at the same diner? Of course not. Pangaea is that breakfast diner. Some programmer could have taken video of all those pedestrians in camera view – in a certain time frame – and extrapolated back in time to put all those pedestrians in one place and leaving at perhaps slightly different times. It would have been a nice exercise, but it wouldn’t mean a damned thing. If he didn’t also know whether there was a bus-stop or a commuter train station nearby or a series of office buildings and it is lunch time, he would not know that the diner was only there to catch some of the commuter traffic. Thus, what he concludes is a cause is only an effect. All of his thinking is simply wrong because he assumes he can know what all happened in the past by extrapolating backward from what he currently sees.
As a general statement,
That is what is wrong with Uniformitarianism and Gradualism.
– the idea that nothing happened in the past except what we can currently observe happening in the present.
But if you put the two ideas in the same room – Gradualism and Moving Continents – any geologist in the world is going to sooner or later extrapolate backward – gradually, gradually – and then tell you X, Y or Z. The Uniformitarianism will then be part of it, because each one of the geologists will tell you that if it is happening now, it pretty much was always happening, in the same way.
It is essentially the same the belief religion had, before science came along. Religion said that man was the center of existence. One step outward from that was the belief that the Earth was the center of the Solar System. Scientists of that time tried to make the science fit the belief, coming up with gerrymandered math called “epicycles” to explain the observed retrograde motions of the planets. Earth as the center meant the planets should have been traveling at constant speeds and never going backward. But empirical observations indicated otherwise. Planets out in space DID appear to go backward. Thus the fudging of the science to try to match the belief. Epicycles was their answer, and they worked for centuries trying to get the epicycles to match the evidence in front of their eyes. It was in working on epicycles that someone finally realized that having the Earth at the center of everything just didn’t work.
So Pangaea sort of equals the Flat Earth Society. It is the belief that there is a center of everything. And throw in the Big Bang, too. But we won’t get into the Big Bang today. That is several posts, all of their own.
Uniformitarianism said that, beyond volcanoes and earthquakes, nothing catastrophic could have possibly happened – since those were the most severe phenomena in the time of Agassiz and Lyell and Darwin. The geology and astronomy and astrophysics and oceanography that have built up since 1850 has all been in denial of catastrophes. Catastrophes were Biblical imaginings – Lot’s wife, Noah and his Flood, the Tower of Babylon and the confusing of tongues. Natural science – by its very definition and genesis – was the antithesis of religion and its catastrophes. Catastrophes had to be denied at all costs, because to admit to them was to open the crack the door open to religion having a say. That was not really the case, but that is what they have thought all these 16 decades.
Well, most of them, anyway. It was really more like 14 and one-half decades. Comet Shoemaker-Levy, in July 1994, threw Uniformitarianism out the window. But the academics are not letting go of it easily. And they will never give credit to the original muckraker who said such things happen. If Immanuel Velikovsky said it in 1950, it was wrong. But when other scientists say it in 2010, they are on the cutting edge of science – and taking credit for ideas that they are stealing. But if even ONE of them gives any credit, why THAT one will be shown the door.
Pangaea is a far dumber idea than any idea Velikovsky came out with. But, because it was proposed by one of their own, well that is okay. IOIYAOOU. (It’s okay if you are one of us.) – wow – look at that! All vowels!