Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Seriously guys... Europe's not really a continent. It has less claim then India or the Middle East would geographically and they have really just as much geopolitically. |
Wait wait, how does Europe have LESS of a geographic claim?
|
Europe is part of the Eurasia tectonic plate. The Middle East and India each have their own tectonic plates. Hence why both are considered sub continents while Europe is nothing more then a pennisula... like florida. |
Well, as I understand it it's considered one plate simply because there is no activity to indicate conflict. "Europe" was actually a separate plate that mashed into what became "Asia" at one point, just like if India ever stops ramming into the Himilayas it'll probably just be part of the same big mass. (This is where the Ural mountain range came from.) The Arabian plate may be a different story.
But also you said geographically, which isn't the same thing as geologically.
|
Not true. Plate tectonics are taken into account by geographers as well as geologists. |
I presume by the unelaborated remark "not true" you're referring to your second sentence, which means you haven't even addressed my larger point.
Also, "geography considers plate tectonics" isn't the same as "plate tectonics dictates geography". |
Ok, i'll put it another way. Plate tectonics dictates geography.
As for the "larger point" It's irrelevent. If India ever becomes part of the eurasian tectonic plate... it would then lose it's sub continent status.
