My post was in response to Ted's (oft-posted) "The supercontinent and
antediluvian gravity". In that work, Ted dismisses the standard
geological interpretation of Pangaea, using the argument that it is
unlikely that seven continents moving randomly would wind up in one
hemisphere, giving the odds of the latter occurrence as 1 in 128.
Others have addressed this issue, noting that: (1) continents do
not move at random; (2) even if they did, you can't just compute a
probability based on one moment in time but have to integrate over
all time; and (3) even if you do just compute the probability for
one sample, the odds aren't 1 in 128 but more like 1 in 3.
I was bringing up yet another point, which is that the standard
model which Ted is attacking does not claim that Pangaea formed by
the joining of seven continents, but by three -- Laurentia, Eurasia,
and Gondwana. It was only during the breakup of Pangaea that Gondwana
divided into South America, Africa, India, Australia, and Antarctica.
To recapitulate: Ted dismisses the standard model on the basis that
it is unlikely that seven continents would come together to form
Pangaea. However, the model does not claim that Pangaea was formed
from seven continents, but from three. Ted's argument against the
standard model should therefore (at the least) be re-formulated to
attack what the model actually claims; in its present form it is an
argument against a strawman of Ted's own devising.