What I've been saying is more supported by what is observed; the opposite viewpoint is mainly support by the unobserved. I think that bones would appear in the upper strata, because I think they only naturally exist in the upper strata.
One question: were you there?
We're delving into observable science vs unobservable science. I do think that our continents looked different back then, but I doubt it was one single super continent. Maybe several large continents (like 3 or 4), but not one super continent.
My avatar has been philosoraptor for a long time. xD lol
I didn't say it was baseless speculation; rather that it is speculating on the unobserved rather than the observed. For example, all "beginning of the universe" theories would be considered unobserved science because it's science we can't observe or test. This is the same with the beginning of the Earth. From my point of view, the ~1600 hominid fossils all in the upper strata suggest that the hominids are a very young species; far younger than 2.5 million years.
As for Pangaea, I like to equate it to black holes. Granted, that's another very widely believed entity, but it's still not "hard" science. Black holes are still technically theory, and are only a suggestion to explain the gravity fluctuations we see in the universe. I really don't feel like arguing either as I don't see how we'd get anywhere, so yeah.
Also, just because something is taught commonly in public schools doesn't make it more true.
You'd be surprised how widely inaccurate history books can be, for example.
I know you didn't say that, and I apologize for insinuating that. However, keep in mind many of the examples used may be the unobserved, but they are not unsupported. We form theories, that we then back up with evidence. When forming ideas around an unobserved action, you have to have a starting point, so scientists form ideas for said event based on educated guesses from existing sciences and plausibility. They then search for evidence to back this up, as once you have a starting point, you know what kind of clues it will leave behind and what to look for. This leads to solidifying the theory (properly through the scientific method) and once that theory has been reiterated and evidences consistently and insurmountably gathered over time; the general population considers it a fact. The scientific community always considers something theory, and if you can back up a better theory, with better evidence, that becomes the new standard.
It is this process that lets us predict unobservable events. It is the same process by which the scientific community solves all problems, and is the most common sense way to go about doing so. Since the unobservable event is just that, unobservable, it is backed and tested by the markers we know an event like that would leave behind. So it is testable, and it is observable through the traces it leaves behind, but it is still technically unobservable. Science predicts the unobservable through tests, data, and other various forms of evidence; not just going "oh, I think this happened"
You may not be saying that, but the way you seem to be approaching this, I feel like you think much of science is just crazy speculations, and it is. Everything in science is speculation, backed by evidence though. For a theory to be considered legitimate, it is presented to the scientific community and evaluated by peers. We believe in the unobservable, only because we back it by the facts that are observable.
As for your statement regarding the hominid species being far younger than 2.5 million years, I feel that comment was inappropriate in this thread. It also conflicts with what you have been asking of others and that is why I feel it one, does not belong here, and two deserves to be pointed out in case you just didn't realize it. While we have delved into speculation, and my ideas moved more into philosophy then actual science, I have still tried to explain my reasoning (all but poorly). That statement is an opinion, as you stated, but it has too many facts in it that are ill represented. How could you know, unless you are a geological expert, that 1600 hominid fossils is too many to be found in the upper strata? Without actually looking that up, I feel you have come to that conclusion based off more of your beliefs than the facts accessible via the internet. I feel an opinion backed by facts like that is irrational and compromising to the questions at hand, unless you can better support it. I only say this because it is to specific, and you would have come to that conclusion by either having come across a well thought out explanation based on scientific research, or it coincides with your beliefs. As you have not stated any specific scientific research in support of this, I feel this to be the latter.
Please keep in mind that this is simply an observation by me based off of the way that your sentences were worded and the way you worded your previous statments, opinions, beliefs, and facts. I in no way mean for this to be offensive, and if you wish to continue this, I would have no issue calmly debating it in a PM or separate thread, as to not bring this thread anymore off topic. Again, this was only brought forward because that statement came off as irregular and slightly irrational and I feel you should have the chance to properly defend it as necessary.
As for the rest of your post, Pangea is widely supported by observable evidence that points to its plausibility, and sense there is not a better theory with proper proof out there, that is what many people now days consider to be fact. Does it mean it happened? Not necessarily, but it is supported with insurmountable evidence.
As for public schools, yes, a lot of it is wrong. However, I am talking about the basic principles of math and geology. These are much more supported facts in grained in a community based off of the exchange of information as it changes. I only referred to public schools because most of us were taught in them, but in reality I was referring to the general knowledge of the sciences, not necessarily what was or wasn't taught in school. If you had a firm grasp of them, I feel you would understand.
On that note, I end this to go to sleep. I am extremely drowsy on cold medication, and can't think straight, so I apologize for the rambling. I hope to continue this, but I would like to reiterate that if it concerns your beliefs or hashing out what I mentioned in the above paragraph(s) then please make a new thread or PM me, otherwise let's try to refocus on the thread at hand (and by us I think I mean me).
P.S. Nothing up here was written with the intent to hurt or be offensive, so please don't take them that way.
Also, the "supercontinent" is just a theory.
