CONCACAF and the CONMEBOL

[$teauA]

Greece won EURO two years ago and I still don't respect them :fool:

 

[Luis Ah-Hoy]

Greece sucks....

 

[Bobby]

Canada won the Gold Cup once.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

What the hell do plate techtonics have to do with football?

If you want to merge CONCACAF and CONMEBOL because "they're the same continent," then you need to know if they really are the same continent.

Which is GEOLOGY BTW .....NOT.....GEOGRAPHY!

"Mere place names are not geography. To know by heart a whole gazeteer full of them would not, in itself, constitute anyone a geographer. Geography has higher aims than this... to trace out the great laws of nature and to mark their influence upon man. In a word, geography is a science, a thing not of mere names, but of argument and reason, of cause and effect." -- William Hughes (King's College, 1863)

Geography is the study of the Earth and its features and of the distribution of life on the earth, including human life and the effects of human activity.

[...]

Since place matters for everything from economics and health, to climate, plants and animals, geography is highly interdisciplinary. Geography draws upon and contributes to numerous other knowledge disciplines.

This is a FIFA issue not a scientific issue. FIFA didn't for the confederations according to the continents.

I think that is quite obvious from your post.

You're right, it's just a coincidence that there are considered 7 continents (6 not including Antarctica) and there are 6 Confederations. Just a complete coincidence, it has nothing to do with Continents.

CONCACAF and CONMEBOL should be merged for the same reasons that Israel and former soviet republics play in Europe.............simply put to make it more competitive for them to qualify, and in the case of Israel to prevent Hamas attacks every other month on Israeli stadiums.

But it's not necessary. Who cares if it's more competitive, why don't we have a giant tournament where every team on earth plays every other team on earth, that's competitive! It's stupid and fine as it is.

You're wrong.

If we go by your plates 'theory' Europe and Asia are one continent and India is a continent by itself basically. Heck even the tiny Isla de Pascuas in the Pacific is a continent by itself too then (since it's located in the Nazca plate)

Yeah, they are on their own large techtonic plates, but are they the size of a continent? Here's the definition of continent "continuous mass of land, mainland." I'm sure you think that's proof of your view, but of course you're also sitting here saying Europe and Asia are different. So obviously something else comes into play besides just continuous mass of land, and that's plate techtonics. Regarding Europe and Asia, YES they are one continent, it's called Eurasia; the difference between Europe and Asia is completely man made (N and S America is not man made, it's based on geography). India is considered a subcontinent because there is a massive connection between it and Asia. Thousands of miles of connection between the two; there's like 10 mile of connection in Panama, plus the fault line.

All in all, nobody is 'right'. In South America and several countries in Europe it is taught that America is one continent. Here in the U.S. it's different.

No, someone is right. The person who has Geography and Geology (just for you Pontiakos!) PhD's on their side is right.

The perfect example can be found in the Spanish wikipedia: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/América (you don't need to understand spanish, just look at the map)

English wikipedia also mentions America as a big mass of land with 'subdivisions'
the Americas, the lands and regions of the Western hemisphere, usually subdivided into North America and South America

Great, so you're saying the Western Hemisphere is divided into subdivisions. That's great, and those subdivisions of the Western Hemisphere are called Continents.

 

[Lennon]

No, someone is right. The person who has Geography and Geology (just for you Pontiakos!) PhD's on their side is right.
-----------------------------------
Great, so you're saying the Western Hemisphere is divided into subdivisions. That's great, and those subdivisions of the Western Hemisphere are called Continents.

Again, 'nobody' is right. Ask any Geography or Geology ( ) PhD from South America or from certain European countries (don't know especifically which ones but I know that in some of them it is taught America is one continent) and they will tell you what I was saying earlier.

And yes, those subdivisions are called continents....depending on where you live. Like I said take a look at the spanish wikipedia link and see how they consider all the countries in the colored zone part of one continent.

I'm not trying to say the wikipedia article is right, just trying to show that you can't say that America is not a single continent or vice-versa because we are taught differently.

edit, found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent

^ basically what I was trying to say

 

[ShiftyPowers]

From your link:

Dividing the Americas in two now made seven continents, nicely symmetrical with the magical number of the Seven Seas, Seven Heavens, and the seven celestial bodies that gave their names to the seven days of the week. However, this division never appealed to Latin America, which saw itself spanning an America that was a single landmass, and there the conception of six continents remains, as it does in scattered other countries such as Japan. From a modern geographic perspective, it could be argued that Europe ought not to be its own continent (in scientific circles people generally prefer to subsume Europe and Asia into Eurasia). This conception appealed to Russia, which spans Eurasia, and also appealed (at least formerly) to Eastern Europe. However, Eurasia is based on one definition of continent, and there is no universal consent as to the definition of that word.

So Latin America resisted evolving scientific theories. Also....

By the geologists definition, Europe and Asia are separate continents since they have separate, distince ancient shield areas and a distinct newer mobile belt (the Urals) forming the mutual margin. Also, India isa geological continent, as it contains a central shield, and the geologically recent Himalaya mobile belt forms its northern margin. North America and South America are separate continents and the connecting istmus being largely the result of volcanism from relatively recent subduction tectonics. But the North American continent also includes Greenland, which is a portion of Canadian shield, and the mobile belt forming its western margin includes the easternmost portion of the Asian land mass.

BLAO!! ^ basically what I was trying to say

 

[Lennon]

yeah, I understood what you were trying to say (regarding the plates) and that is the main reason why many people consider them separte continents. However many people don't take that into account and consider them one continent:

< from the classification part of the article >

"Since geography is defined by local convention and there is difficulty in setting lines in terms of "continuous", there are several variations as to which land masses qualify as continents, and which must be classified as supercontinents, microcontinents, subcontinents or islands. Seven landmasses and their associated islands are commonly reckoned as continents, but these may be consolidated. For example, North and South America are often considered a single continent, and Asia is often united with Europe."

And this is the reason why we can debate forever in this topic:

"The 7-continent model is usually taught in Western Europe, China, and most native English-speaking countries. The 6-continent combined-America model is taught in Latin America, Iberia and some other parts of Europe. The 6-continent combined-Eurasia model is preferred by the geographic community, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan."

You were taught one thing in school, I was taught another thing and somebody else in Asia is being taught another thing.
Each of us think we are right but we are not (in a way). Remember, we're talking geography, not math.

 

[#1 Stunna]

Bruno... Shifty, give it a rest.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

You were taught one thing in school, I was taught another thing and somebody else in Asia is being taught another thing.
Each of us think we are right but we are not (in a way). Remember, we're talking geography, not math.

If you ask a qualified scholar anywhere in the world about it he will unquestionably tell you that the Americas are seperate continents. Just because you were taught something doesn't mean it's scholarly correct. I was taught Christopher Colombus discovered America, but that's obviously not true. In terms of scholars who are actually qualified to settle the debate, it is not something up for debate; this isn't math, but geography and geology are science. Therefore there is generally one accepted theory. There aren't 10 different models to explain gravity, there's one. Scholars from Japan for instance don't just ignore the discoveries of everyone outside Japan, or who doesn't agree with the popularly held notion of laymen in his country, the study of geography is universal.

I won't give it a rest, people continue to say "well it depends" when scientifically no it does not depend.

But at least we're all united by our dislike of the original idea posed in the first post.

EDIT: North America and South America have less history than North America and Siberia. Geologically, they have only been connected recently and looking at "continental drift" (which interestingly treats North and South America seperately since they MOVE SEPERATELY) this is clear.

 

[Lennon]

I get your point, but like Paul said it'll be better to put an end to this. Back to the CONMEBOL-CONCACAF talk....