The theory of plate tectonics is a "theory" not a fact. It is important to keep the two separate but it is also important to look at both sides of a topic to make sure you have the best explanation.
That is true, however, I ask that you please provide "your" definition or description of the difference from a layman's dictionary definition of a theory and that of what the scientific community defines a theory as; therefore, a "scientific theory". Your post leads me to believe you are uninformed of the differences.
I get most of my information from sites that accept evolutionary concepts because they have the most data collected.
Why would you go to sites that accept evolutionary concepts to obtain information about plate tectonics? Would not sites provided by accredited educational institutions in the area of "Geophysics" and the peer review literature be a better choice. That is information from experts in that particular field, rather than sources outside that field.
This does not necessarily mean I agree with all of their interpretations.
If you source the literature provided by those who work and are experts in the field, you will discover that the only interpretation differences are in a few minute details, not the theory itself.
There are specific reasons why the theory of plate tectonics is accepted.
1. The continents seem to fit together.
2. Animals somehow migrated from one continent to another.
The base assumptions are:
1. Mankind did not exist when the animals relocated.
2. Earths history of life happened over millions and millions of years.
I do not know the source of that information but it in no way describes any reason(s) for accepting plate tectonics.
The continents do seem to fit together, yes. That was the "theory" developed by Alfred Wegener which was not plate tectonics, but rather "Continental Drift". Continental drift was the original theory but was abandoned because it provided little evidence. The only evidence it could provide was as you mentioned, the continents seemed to fit together and it was recognized (observed) that where some of these continents fit together, fossils matched where they seemed to join. No doubt that both of those observations are objective and real, but what Continental drift theory lacks is the "mechanism" or proof of how they drifted.
The theory of plate tectonics actually has its beginnings during and just after world war II. During the war the U.S. Navy begin mapping the Atlantic seafloor to get an idea where German submarines might hide or use it to their advantage. But that is a story within itself.
The idea of animals migrating from one continent to another comes from what I mentioned about fossils. They didn't just migrate, that is where the continents split apart. But again, that is not plate tectonic theory, it is continental drift theory.
Here is an alternate theory.
The base assumptions are:
1. Mankind did exist when the animals relocated and mankind knew how to build boats.
2. Earths history of life happened over thousands of years.
3. The Earth was at one point completely covered with water.
The problem there is that all those assumptions go against the already known and observed physical evidence, not to mention a complete lack of any supporting evidence for your assumptions.
You seem to be ignoring the age of those fossils and the fact that the same animals that lived during the time of all human life are not a part of that "migration" you speak of. There is also a complete lack of evidence of any artifacts or historical record which would surely exist if man had the capability to do such a feat.
If the continents were underwater at some time and were to float on the mantle rising above sea level then the distance between continents would be a function of how stiff the earth surface was.
Portions of the continents were under water throughout geologic history but you seem to have overlooked a few physical problems with those assumptions. First you are confusing the mantle with the lithosphere. They are quite different, but you do have one concept somewhat correct. The core of the continents are made up of granitic rock while the seafloor is composed of basaltic rock. Granite is much less dense than basalt and therefore do literally float over basalt. But that is also somewhat misleading in that description because there is quite a bit of geophysics not included in that description. Nevertheless, none of that would have anything to do with sea level or the reason there are some marine deposits on are found on continental interiors.
A very stiff surface would only allow one continent because the Earths surface could not be bent into a wave shape.
I have no idea what you mean by wave shape, but you are aware of the curvature of the Earth, I gather. Are you suggesting that a continent cannot be a curved shape? If you are then the Earth would have to be flat, not round.
A more flexible earth crust would make a wave of land water land water with approximately the same distances. Of course the Earths crust is not necessarily always the same stiffness but it is similar enough to cause a common minimum ocean width between close continents giving them the appearance they would fit together.
That is not the case nor can you provide any physics to support such an assumption.
I do not need to cause the continents to have moved together because mankind existed and knew how to build boats.
Continents have both collided and moved apart. Look at the mid-Atlantic ridge. This is an area where basalt is upwelling. By dating the rock on both sides of the ridge, it is seen that moving away from the ridge on both sides, the ages of the rock matches. Additionally, magnetic reversals are recognized and match exactly on both sides of the ridge. That is historical geophysical evidence. But let's go one step further. Since satellites have been in use, geophysicists have been able to measure the continuing rate of the separation of the continents and the direction of their movement. This real-time measurement of rate is on the order of several inches a year on average. Extrapolating that movement rate and direction backward, the continents do bit back together. There is much much more to this of course as to what the driving mechanism is, but this should be enough for you to understand the very basic basics of the process.
I am comfortable with my perspective because I do not need to extrapolate into extremely long time durations or move continents around to fit my theory to the data.
Duordi.
Again, I cannot emphasize enough the need to look at the actual science as presented by experts who work in the field rather than no expert sources. Though you may be comfortable with your idea it lacks supporting evidence.
Here are a few sources I recommend:
Understanding plate motions [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]
This Dynamic Earth--Contents [USGS]
CVO Website - Plate Tectonics, Hot Spots, and Ring of Fire - World Map
Harry Hess: One of the Discoverers of Seafloor Spreading
Plate Tectonics
Plate Tectonic Reconstructions at UTIG
