My post was in response to Ted's (oftposted) +quot;The supercontinent and antediluvian gra

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

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. Ken Cox kcc@wucs1.wustl.edu

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank