By the view of science and it's advancements, not a tough reach at all. People of science are showing more and more evidence that there's more water in the earth than there is upon it. New discoveries of where drop stones lay push ice sheets out to longer and wider areas of coverage than thought possible before. Science minded persons have long maintained there is more water on the surface than that in the earth. So once again, we have old science and new science battling it out as to which theory should be maintained/changed.<quoted text>
This is some severe reaching. We have known about ice ages for a long time and we also know that they were accompanied by significant falls in the sea level. Thus the accumulated ice balanced by a fall in ocean volume.
And as pointed out earlier, Pangea was not the original supercontinent, if there even was one. Pangaea was one in a series of supercontinents that have come together and split apart repeatedly over the whole of earth's history. It formed 300 million years ago...so is recent by the standards of earth time.
And my point of a Genesis description of Pangea wasn't about the time period of when the supercontinent Pangea happened. It was about the writer guessing/insinuating/describin g a supercontinent. The writer of Genesis never once used a plural form to describe the earth's landmasses. And the fact the writer would have known bodies of water partially or totally separated land masses making large and small islands of land makes no sense that they wouldn't have used plural tones to describe the earth in it's beginning stage.
Thus it's my opinion the writer purposefully described a supercontinent.