Did Pangea Really Exist?

If You Claim to Know Nothing of the Continent of 'Pangea' You Can Get a 'Fail'

The Only Slight Problem? Pangea Does Not Exist! Although It Might Conceivably Have Existed - in the Distant Past






Did "Pangea" Really Exist?

(Click on the map above if you want a bigger view of it).

There is certainly evidence that the great continents were once joined together and Genesis even contains possible hints that this was so, but can we know exactly how, or where the borders were? If this is correct, did 'continental drift' require countless millions of years for the separations to occur?



O ver a hundred years ago the German scientist Alfred Wegener (1880-1930), a polar researcher, geophysicist and meteorologist, suggested the concept of an ancient continent, or super-continent, which he named 'Pangaea' (sometimes written as 'Pangea').



Wegener did this after putting together several lines of evidence. This is the concept that all of the land masses of the earth were at one time connected together as one giant world-wide-continent. For sure, some of the continents of our planet look like they could almost fit together like some sort of giant jigsaw puzzle pieces (Africa and South America could be cited as an example of this). However, the Pangea view which is typically expressed by modern naturalistic 'science' insists on huge and imagination-defying figures for the age of our planet, indeed huge figures which are not called for, nor can ever be substantiated in any way. For example Live Science.com expresses it like this:


"Pangaea formed through a gradual process spanning a few hundred million years. Beginning about 480 million years ago, a continent called Laurentia, which includes parts of North America, merged with several other micro-continents to form Euramerica. Euramerica eventually collided with Gondwana, another supercontinent that included Africa, Australia, South America and the Indian subcontinent...." (taken from Live Science.com).


Those figures are, of course, utterly absurd and are simply a wild speculation on numbers which none of us can ever possibly know, or arrive at. Moreover, names such as 'Euramerica' or 'Gondwana' as applied to land masses or continents are utterly fictitious! This wild unsubstantiated "science" continues thus:


"About 200 million years ago, the supercontinent began to break up. Gondwana (what is now Africa, South America, Antarctica, India and Australia) first split from Laurasia (Eurasia and North America). Then about 150 million years ago, Gondwana broke up. India peeled off from Antarctica, and Africa and South America rifted, according to a 1970 article in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Around 60 million years ago, North America split off from Eurasia." (source as before).



Alfred Wegener (1880-1930)

Alfred Wegener appears to be the first person to have suggested an original single earth continent which had later broken up and separated. He called it 'Pangaea.' However, Wegener did not consider that millions of years were required for continental separation to have occurred, he thought it could have occurred remarkably quickly. Wegener was opposed by evolutionists who wanted a 'millions of years' scenario and who did not believe that a few thousand years were long enough for continental drift to have advanced so far.


To state such nonsense and wild speculation in an authoritative manner is unforgivable in what purports to be a 'science' article, but perhaps we have all become accustomed to such things by now. I recently watched a TV quiz show here in the UK where a contestant was told that she 'gave the wrong answer' simply because she was unaware of the ancient super-continent of "Pangea." But there is no proof that Pangea ever existed! Things like this should warn us how modern science - and its idle speculations - are now often considered sacrosanct in the community of the 'intelligentsia' and the "highly educated."

Having stated all of the above, there is no doubt that there is evidence - I said "evidence" which is not the same thing as 'proof' - that the continents might originally have indeed been joined together, or partly joined together - the Bible simply does not tell us. However, Genesis 1:9 records, "And God said, 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.' If all the water was "gathered to one place," the dry ground would also very possibly be all 'in one place.' Others have pointed to Genesis 10:25 which mentions, "...one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided.." So some will point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah. So there was water and there was land, very possibly there were indeed one or two super-continents, this would also explain how certain plants and animals were able to get out to some more remote islands and land areas (that is, because they were originally joined together, or were much more accessible that they are now). The evidence is strongest that South America and West Africa were originally joined (which would explain the similarity of the flora and fauna in some of those places), there is also no doubt that Britain was originally joined onto France and the European continent, and Japan was originally part of the greater Asian continent (rather than a group of islands, as it is now).


Other Related Theories

Some Christians, however, view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the division that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not to the division of the continents through the concept of 'continental drift.' Others dispute the post-Noahic Pangea schema of separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Flood of Noah. But, there again, nobody can possibly prove that the continents have always drifted apart at the same rate. Furthermore, an all-powerful God is fully capable of accomplishing the required continental-drift process in order to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8) in quicker time than one might expect. So whilst the time of the Flood seems the strongest possibility, the period of 'the tower of Babel' cannot entirely be ruled out either since an omnipotent God could certainly have brought about a rapid continental drift occurrence at that time. So perhaps there really was once a super-continent of 'Pangea,' it would definitely explain certain things, yet it still does seem incredible that somebody on a TV quiz show could be told that they have failed a question simply because they did not know the name of the continent of Pangea!

So the post-Noahic Pangea concept certainly could explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? (Papua New Guinea, by the way, also has kangaroos, at least strongly suggesting that this land to the north of Australia was orginally joined to it). Other creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory would include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory See this (that article is very technical, I'm afraid). Go there for more on that. This theory places an accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah's Flood, which is certainly highly possible. There are also one or two variations on this.

Another explanation offered by some creationist Christians does not require a pre-Noahic, Noahic, or post-Noahic continental break-up at all, nor was there ever a 'Pangea,' This is based on the belief that a great Ice Age followed the Great Flood. According to this theory, intercontinental migration most likely began while sea levels were still low during the post-Flood Ice Age when much of the water was still trapped in ice at the poles. Lower sea levels (because of the abundance of ice) would have left the continental shelves exposed, connecting all of the major land masses through natural land bridges. Got Questions.org states:


"There are (or at least were) shallow underwater land bridges connecting all of the major continents. North America, Southeast Asia, and Australia are all attached to continental Asia. Britain is attached to continental Europe. In some places, these intercontinental bridges are only a few hundred feet below our current sea level. The theory can be summarized as follows: (1) After the Flood, an Ice Age occurred. (2) The vast amount of water that was frozen resulted in the oceans being much lower than they are today. (3) The low level of the oceans resulted in land bridges connecting the various continents. (4) Human beings and animals migrated to the different continents over these land bridges. (5) The Ice Age ended, the ice melted and the ocean levels rose, resulting in the land bridges being submerged."


The problem with this explanation is that it seems to assume that every part of the world would have been affected by the Ice Age but, of course, it would not; many equatorial areas would have been far less affected.


Conclusion

We cannot be entirely certain but there are feasible explanations as to how continental drift could have occurred, or how the Ice Age facilitated people and animals to reach the various continents, and islands, explanations which do not require the often ludicrous "200 milion years" and similar extreme figures which modern science loves to pluck out of the air and throw into the mix. I will just say that the post-flood Ice Age theory is supported by good meteorology; it is inconceivable that a world-wide deluge would not have been followed by a long period of exceptionally cool or cold weather on a world-wide scale.


Robin A. Brace. February 28th, 2016.


UK APOLOGETICS