Microtectonics Vs Macrotectonics

German scientist Alfred Wegener first proposed his idea of continental drift in 1912. According to Wegener, the continents appeared to fit together, much like the pieces of a jig-saw puzzle, and therefore must have been broken apart from one “supercontinent,” which he called, Urkontinent. This was the original name for the hypothetical land mass that is now referred to as Pangea.

Today, neo-Wegenerists attempt to confuse children by teaching them about plate tectonics, which is basically a rebranded version of Wegener’s original theory. What they don’t tell you is just that—it’s nothing more than a theory with no evidence to support it.

So is plate tectonics true? Surprisingly, yes! Sort of. It’s important to make a distinction between the two types of tectonics: microtectonics and macrotectonicts.

Microtectonics describes the movement of continents within an area. It is well established that continents can shift slightly from year to year. There is a slight, but measurable difference between the positioning of the continents over time.

An extreme example of microtectonics would be the shifting of the entire island of Japan by as much as 2 meters following the 9.0 magnitude earthquake that struck the Godless nation. Although this is far more than the typical movement observed, it remains within the bounds of the same area.

Macrotectonics, on the other hand, is what Wegenerian proponents attempt to convince us of. That is, the idea that continents can break apart and come together to form entirely different continents. The problem is, no one has ever observed one continent change into another continent.

Of course, a Europe and an Asia can come together to make a Eurasia; they are all part of the same area. But an Australia will never become an Africa. If Wegenerism is true, why haven’t we found any evidence of an Austrafrica?

In the end, believing in Wegenerian macrotectonics takes a leap of faith that I’m not willing to take.