Perhaps, but one thing I do know. In all of the Pangea simulations, they have to shrink Greenland and Africa by 30% to make it fit.
Here is your evident source aka Kent Hovind, and a response:
KH: and I'm tellin' you if you look at a map you will find out, in order to get Pangaea, to get Africa and South America to fit together, for instance, they had to shrink Africa 40%. They do not fit unless you shrink Africa 40%. You know, get an earth science textbook and look up Pangaea, and you will see Mexico and all of Central America, you know Belize, well, not Belize. Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama - they're all gone. They took 'em out. They twisted two continents clockwise and twisted another one counterclockwise.
I challenge anyone who buys this hooey to visit any of a number of great plate tectonics sites, including Deconstructing Pangaea and The Breakup of Pangea which show the actual movement of the plates. What Hovind sees as a change in size is either wishful thinking or a change in the type of map projection he is used to seeing. As for Central America, it is not a matter of taking it out to get the continents to fit; it is that much of Central America did not exist until the Tertiary, a fact that can be substantiated by fossil and geological evidence.
Source:
Account Suspended
I challenge anyone to actually look at a globe (not a Mercator projection) and tell me that either continent would require resizing. Also remember, it is the continental shelves that fit, not the coastline, but in this case its still pretty close.
Sheesh NJ, IMHO it would be a full-time job for anyone to just keep up with every unexamined falsehood from others of, to put it mildly, dubious reputation, that you manage to spout as:
quote:
one thing I do know
Now back to global warming.
™ Version 4.2
