Ok in what works is Antarctica not a continent???
There can be only ONE Pangea gang 4L
One of my first arguments on here was over what constitutes a continent. I feel vindicated.
imo europe is a colonialist excuse, not a continent
I don’t believe in continents. I’m incontinent.
why does Australia get one they don’t even do it right
I was taught it was Australasia.
“Australia and Oceania” here, in the first of two models I’ll elaborate on.
We were taught two different models
First one translates basically as “divisions of the world”
- Europe
- Asia
- Africa
- Antarctica
- Australia and Oceania
- Americas
The other one translates more directly as “continents”
- Eurasia
- Africa
- Antarctica
- Australia
- North America
- South America
But those are of course not the only models, just the ones taught in school where I’m from.
In the great words of Atlas Pro after going into excruciating detail on why no answer is more correct He said:
So gow many continents are there?
“Obviously six”
No further clarification was given.
There’s a great map men episode on this
There’s anywhere between 2 and 7:
- Afroeurasia (inc australia , antartica counts as an ocean)
- Americas
or
- Europe
- Asia
- Africa
- North America
- South America
- Oceania
- Antartic
So you’re saying pi continents is possible?
I’m sold.
Why is antarctica considered an ocean? It’s a land mass. Granted, the vast majority of it is covered in ice, but it is still above sea level.
There’s no way Australia counts as the same continent as Afroeurasia, and Antarctica is a landmass (unlike the Arctic ice). 4 continents minimum.
personally i’m on team 2 continents
Europe isn’t a continent, it’s a political entity. A continent is geographic. EurAsia is a continent.
Lol no. The european union is the political entity. Europe is a continent. Asia is a continent. If you want to talk about both of them together you can say eurasia but they are not one continent.
What delineates Europe from Asia that shouldn’t also delineate India from Asia?
Not trying to be argumentative, curious. I’ve always heard of India as a subcontinent, and when explained why it seems like Europe fits the same description.
Large mountain ranges (the Urals for Europe-Asia and the Himalayas for India-rest-of-Asia).
They are one continuous landmass. A continent is one continuous landmass. You can’t split a single landmass and call it two separate continents.
So is North and South America. Is that also one continent?
There are going to be little isthmuses connecting landmasses, but that doesn’t make them combined. Africa is technically connected to both Europe and Asia, but nobody is suggesting that they be combined with Europe and Asia. Europe and Asia are literally the same landmass, with just a border between them.
Even the Middle East probably has a better claim on being a Continent than Europe.
Besides, the Panama Canal essentially makes North And South America separated by water.
Aren’t Europe and Asia on the same techtonic plate? Isn’t that also the reason India is considered a subcontinent because it is on a different techtonic plate?
Iceland is between two tectonic plates, and that rule would separate the Somali plate from the rest of Africa, make the Caribbean its own continent, etc
Don’t forget zealandia being its own continent
North and South America are joined by a thin strip of land that serves as the continent border. Africa and Eurasia are joined by a thin strip that serves as a continent barrier. Europe and Asia have no natural border between them.
It’s wild how much “basic science” is just some pale bro’s wacky idea.
There’s between 3 and 500. Since it’s statistically unlikely that the correct number would be at either extreme, the most likely correct number of continents would be somewhere around 250, with a margin of error of approximately 245.
Look at the big brain on Brett!
I always thought it had something to do with continental drift.
Europe being on a different continent than Asia always seemed like bullshit. I can forgive the isthmuses, but Eurasia feels like it’s a thing to me.
Sometimes things are defined by history, inertia, earlier understandings. There are six continents, because there’s always been six and it would be overly pedantic to find objective criteria with today’s understanding …… unless you want another Pluto controversy.
Well by that logic then Europe ,Asia and Africa are all one continent. Just because someone dug a fucking suez ditch does not make them any less connected.
Since continent doesn’t have a strict definition, in my book, giving the isthmus of suez (and the isthmus of panama) a pass makes sense. Both of those were historically very difficult to traverse and not viable sustained trade routes compared to just sailing around them. Hell, there’s still not a road that links North and South America through the Darian Gap, which is wild to me considering what seems like should be a vital connection point bottleneck.
I understand “continent” a mercurial word and so people can define Europe and Asia as being different contients, but it does seem like it’s the only continental division that doesn’t make logical sense to me.
Well I guess. But there is a bridge across the suez and by a similar kind of logic you could split europe into 2 ‘continets’ because of the donau-main kanal. Same thing as the panama one as far as I am concerned.
I think of it more as if you were to give a pen to an alien child and said “draw a circle around the main landmasses on this planet” they would probably logically draw circles around North America, South America, Eurasia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica. They wouldn’t look at the Ural Mountains or any sort of canal systems, just “these are the main blobs on this world map.”
But that’s just the way I think of continents. 🤷♂️
I guess. But in my mind still main landmass would encompass anything connected to it. So if you were to look at the earth before we built all those canals there would be like 4 continents. I don’t personally think small things like a canal would be enough to actually separate 1 continent into 2. It would have to be quite a bit of distance for that to make sense. Like if the entire canal was the width and depth of the gulf of suez then yes, we have made a new continent.
But then you run into the issue that the very concept of continent was invented to differentiate Europe and Asia (and Africa).
Eh, words change and sometimes terms outlive their etymology or grow beyond it. We “hang up the phone” but no phone these days is actually hung up. 🤷
That’s literally the same thing, we kept the expression even when we know it isn’t accurate any more, because we still have the need to express the original meaning.
If anything, we should split Asia in more subcontinents.
Informally, we kinda do. Middle East, East Asia, South East Asia, South Asia.
Yeah, fair enough.
Still seems like, with the way that continent is typically defined, Eurasia should be the continent with subcontients of Europe, Asia, India, and the Middle East.
The difference between Europe and Asia should also apply to Asia and India.
How is India different from Pakistan?
I think both pakistan and India are the subcontinent of India. Wherever the mountains are is the edge of it.
The Romans divided the world into three equal landmasses before they understood how it was actually laid out and it stuck.
Definitely not the Romans. It may have stuck because of them, but the Greeks divided the world that way long before Rome left Italy.
Same, if they’re different continents then Africa is also more than one continent
