Yes, I know that current theory holds that there were previous super-continents. They still cannot explain or provide any rational reason for their assertion that the current land masses 'drifted' around the globe.
But here's the thing, and the current theory cannot explain it. If you watch the animation of the shrinking earth, you can see how all of the land masses move closer to each other until they all fit together like a seamless jig-saw puzzle.
How is that possible, if they broke up into arbitrary chunks from one super-continent? If the current land masses are chunks of one contiguous super-continent, they should only fit seamlessly together using that model. They shouldn't fit together on a smaller globe, if the current theory is true. But they do. Not only that, running the model on other planets produces the same effect as running it on earth.
I know how vehemently opposed you are to this theory, but you really ought to take a half hour and watch Neal Adams' videos. Pay particular attention to the ones where he runs his model on our moon, Mars, and Enceladus. The photographs show clear evidence of expansion.
It's tough to argue with his observations. They show what they show. It's up to science to now discover how and why planets do this.
On the contrary. The animations do not show the existing shapes seamlessly going together. The shapes change as the size of the globe changes so that they will go together. It's easy to make an animation doing that.
Both theories have the landmasses fitting together at some point. So if the puzzle pieces are good for one they’re good for both, and if you have to question them breaking up in one you have to question it for both.
I’m not vehemently opposed to his theory, I’m vehemently opposed to his LIES about other theories.