They are a collection of supposed supporting evidence, are they not? They show all the reasons why this guy is right.
The problem is you can present compelling evidence for almost anything, if you just pick out things that support you. It's called Confirmation Bias, and it's not science. What you have to look at is where it might be proven wrong, not where it's claims are supposedly upheld. A good theory is one that's not falsified.
What I've seen at that site is a lot more compelling and convincing than the theory that the continents are drifting around the planet, crashing and bumping into one another. No one has yet explained how that is even possible.
Take a look at the video where he shows the expansion of North America. When he runs that expansion in reverse, you can see all the fragments of Northern Canada fit back together like the pieces of a jig-saw puzzle. That's not just theoretical. They fit together precisely. I don't call that bias.
I agree... At the risk of sending the thread off-topic, I would submit that no one compiles and displays errata anymore - Especially modern 'science'. Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine, and one of the reasons I put little faith in science at all. To accuse this guy without leveling the same accusation at most of accepted 'science' seems a bit hypocritical... Not pointed at you. just sayin...