[ml/nj]

You don’t believe in continental drift, or plate tectonics?

No.

In fact when I was in college (RPI '68), some speaker came to give a talk about this stuff and he was considered a quack.

Also, there's a big difference between continental drift and the notion that there was a time when there was only one land-mass while water still covered two-thirds of the planet. You sorta have to explain how it got that way; not that the explanations of how the earth formed as we see it are any good either. (E.g.: tell me what the earth was like when it was 7000 miles in diameter, assuming you believe it accreted and it was 7000 miles in diameter sometime.)

ML/NJ

[ETL]

Re: You don’t believe in continental drift, or plate tectonics?

No. In fact when I was in college (RPI '68), some speaker came to give a talk about this stuff and he was considered a quack.

Of course. Back in the 60s, even late 60s, the theory was still pretty much new. Now there is overwhelming evidence to support it.