Pangaea

[Rota]

Pangea existed, and there is evidence that it existed.

The counter-argument is that none of us are old enough to have seen Pangea with our own eyes, so it did not exist. There are lots of things that we have evidence of, and have not seen with our own eyes, yet we accept it as a fact. If seeing something with our own eyes is the requirement for something to be true, then we need to throw out almost every history book. We need to destroy half of our scientific knowledge. A large majority of all human knowledge is now debunked. All faiths are gone, since no deities have ever been seen by anyone alive today. Any law can now be struck down as unconstitutional, since nobody actually saw the founding fathers write that document. The moment your parents and their siblings pass away, it's okay to marry your cousin, since you're no longer related.

Personally I believe there are higher powers than we can perceive. I trust most history books. Without them, Conrad would cease to exist, I think. I believe germs exist, even though I do not have microscopic eyes to see them for myself. But, I suppose the argument a good fit for an atheist, anarchist, misanthrope, suffering from cognitive dissonance. I don't think that is a valid description for anyone here, so maybe we can let some logic rule the day. Maybe we can accept a truth that may not fit one's predisposed belief. We can accept the overwhelming evidence that Pangea was what the Earth looked like millions of years ago.