My point is that you seem to accept the inferences drawn from plate boundries, hot spots, fossil placement, etc. as evidence of plate movement, yet you apparently do not accept any inferences whatsoever from the fossil record, demonstrable speciation, the geologic column, etc. as evidence of evolution.
Nowhere on earth is the hypothetical geologic column complete in the sense of having the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period. The standard column is supposed to be 100+ miles thick.
Common sense shows that the 16 miles which exists (on average; one mile), out of a total of 100 or 200 miles, is a very incomplete column. The 100 to 200 miles exists as a textbook fantasy.
Should I mention overlapping fossil ranges and non-superposed index fossils. This presents a bit of a problem for the geologic column.
Lithologies attributed to all ten geologic periods can be found but they are nowhere near the magnitude of what your textbooks claim. And we can only acount for about 1% of the earths surface with these areas. If we include ocean basins we fall down to about .4%. By this evidence, you assume that the geologic column is the norm.
The geologic column is absent 99% of the time, so it does not exist in any significant amount.