Replies

Plate tectonics is a theory, not a hypothesis. Please be aware of this very important point, it makes a big difference to us fuddy duddy science guys.

There are numerous evidences supporting Pangea. Soil evidence, fossil evidence, mineral evidence, visual evidence, seismic evidence, genetic evidence, faunal evidence. I won't bore you with all that stuff, as you can simply put the phrases "xxx evidence pangea" in google and you'll be rewarded.

Since AndrewC has accused me (implicitly at least) of not focusing, can we return to your contention that "continents aren't on lily pads but there's lots of dirt beneath them?" I mean, that was a pretty important thing you said there and didn't return to.

Plate techtonics IS a theory. Pangea is a hypothesis. The way it is typically drawn ignores information. The continents very well may have been together at one point, but it may not have been exactly in the shape that evolutionists propose. Shrinking Africa and ignoring other countries doesn't help the Pangea hypothesis.

As far as the lily-pad analogy goes, do you suggest that the continents are just free floating lily pads? I don't see where my statement was problematic.