Replies

Wow. First off, I must give you credit for responding to so many of us. I will do my part and ignore the religion stuff for now, and focus on one thing. A rather big thing, though, I'm afraid.

Pangea is a fairy tail... It is a theory of what may have occurred and has been discredited. The continents are not sitting on lily pads. There is actual dirt underneath.

Well, you are consistent if anything. Is thunder just God bowling too? What are earthquakes? Volcanism? Fault lines? Continental drift? Your claim that Pangea is a "discredited fairy tail (sic)" is astonishing. Surely you have submitted this to a publisher? Any publisher? At least you do recognize that any continental shifting points to an old earth and lends credence to evolution, which is why you must deny it. And since you can't actually "see" the continents moving (because there's "actual dirt beneath") it follows suit that (much like the long, slow evolutionary process) you refuse to accept it.

By the way, have you ever wondered what's below all that "dirt?" Curious as to what the word "molten" in "molten lava" means? Ever been interested in the near jigsaw puzzle shape of E. Brazil and W. Africa? Did it ever cross your mind as to how certain species (humans included) got from one "island" land mass to another?

Apparently not.

You make oodles of assumptions based upon what I said about Pangea. Assumptions about what I believe or don't believe regarding plate tectonics. I said that they shrank Africa to make it fit. That does not help Pangea. And, fair enough, erosion could account for part of it not being a perfect fit today, but good grief, get ahold of yourself. To say that I don't believe in volcanic action, fault lines, earthquakes based upon my rejection of the hypotheses surrounding Pangea is almost hysterics.

By the way, there are continental shelves surrounding the continents and land bridges that could explain how people got from point A to point B.