Hi people. At my school, we are learning about Plate Tectonics and Sea Floor Spreading and all that stuff. So, while we were learning about it, we came across the topic of Pangaea. The name of when all the continents were joined together. It gave a pic of what Wegener had found to prove his hypothesis (A map of the world containing a plant and dinosaur on bunches of continents. I thought it was a great discovery for him, at first. but then I pieced together some stuff that I found to kinda disprove the idea...

On the map of the continents in its current way, it showed the animal "Kannayamad", or something along those lines, on each continent (except Antarctica and Australia). I soon figured out this animal looked very much like a Triceratop. And from what I've learned, they migrate. So would it be dumb to think it could travel to the four joined continents? North America and Asia were conjoined at one point in time, before the cross ways broke off. People found this out when humans traveled to NA from there. and SA is conjoined to NA, so it could (Like birds) Travel south when it got too cold. And from Asia to Africa, you'd also have to travel south. and Africa and Asia are conjoined. showing an easy passage way to move through the continents it was proved to inhabit.
Then it showed two other dinosaurs. It was easy to prove they could swim from Africa to SA, since one looked like a crocodile and the other plain looked capable of swimming, with a lot of the same features of a crocodile.
After that, they showed the plant Glosopterus. it was on every continent. But who is to say that couldn't be caused by fertilization and being carried upon the migratory animals? and with it being on Antarctica... South America could have been (I am NOT saying this is a confirmed-by-me thing, just that it is a possibility) connected o Antarctica at some point in time, but was eroded away by water and wind. If you look at a map of SA there are some islands that follow down through near Antarctica. So an animal could have traveled through there, with a seed of the Glosopterus on it, and traveled down there and the seed got fertilized soon later. But it also could be from the wind carrying the seed down there, if SA and Antarctica were conjoined, since there were no signs of migratory animals, on that map, found in Antarctica.

So, theres my idea upon this. tell me your thoughts and also give opinions on this, if you'd like. Thank you .

I'm not really sure what you've said disproves anything. Continental drift has been measured for quite a while and it has been pretty consistent during that time. We know it's happening because we can see it happening every day and we see the results of it happening for millions of years in the atlantic ocean.

MegaRevolution1 : All the Pangaea stuff looks pretty realistic to me. It really makes a lot of sense, if you look, even the continents look like they fit together.

That's an awful lot of luck and coincidence required to carry all those seeds and stuff all that distance with them stilling being intact. Then again though, it's quite possible. I think the whole pangaea thing is quite plausible, just look at where all the earthquakes happen, and where the mountains are. It all fits where they say all the plates are. We can measure continental drift through GPS, and yes, all the continents are moving, and yes, they're moving the way we think they are. I think that if a huge meteor hit the earth, it might've been a contributing factor to killing off the dinosaurs, and then the impact cracked the earth into all those plates, and hey, maybe a huge piece flew off, or maybe the meteor bounced off, and turned into the moon. This last bit is all speculation, but I think it's fun, LOL

It is quite possible for a plant to have been accidentally carried across continents, or even to have been blown over. But the notion of a prehistoric crocodile swimming from Africa to South America is just not possible, unless you mean when the two were extremely close to one another.

I think it's entirely plausible, as BTowns, pi0x, and geeo have said.
Also, I think it could work from a Biblical perspective, what with such rupturing of water during Noah's flood that could have easily broken connections when "the fountains of the deep" burst open.

Actually the Biblical flood is historically dated to the end of one of the great ice ages, the waters rose as the ice melted and it flooded the area that is now the Black Sea. Evidence supports that because there is a great flood myth in almost every culture that existed around that time.

As for Pangaea, well, there is a mountain of geological evidence supporting it, as well as archeological evidence. The idea of conditions being 100% identical on separate parts of the world to allow for convergent evolution is very slim, and all evidence points to the plates being together in a giant landmass that eventually split apart. It is why you start seeing different dinosaurs in different areas after the splits occurred... which also means that the meteor strike that heralded the end of the dinosaurs did not cause the plates to split (sorry, BTowns). If you haven't had the pleasure, I recommend watching Walking with Dinosaurs, as the documentary does a wonderful job of showing how the pangaea split effected dinosaur evolution and yet it presents it in an easy to understand format.

I remember learning about this in school, the subject fascinated me a bit, I wish we had a way to go back in time and see how Pangaea looked.

BTowns : Your last bit isn't speculation. It's true. It was a large asteroid that hit the Earth, breaking off chunks with it, and converged to form the moon billions of years ago. But that happened long before life existed. Dinosaurs definitely weren't around, neither was plate tectonics. Not the way it is now, anyway.

I learned that first big bang right, then millions of years later there have been to critical destructive envents, first planet was mostly gases, then after I guess collection of minerals, elements, and gases it became more land, and rock. I am not sure but there were 2 meteor instances before the planet eventually came to look like Pangaea. What happened after I am not sure from there.

Where's the controversy? I don't understand the debate here.

All the continents sit on top of Earth's molten center like tiny little rafts. The continents are not rooted to the center of the Earth. They float. They move. At one point, they were grouped together and slowly spread a part.

The Himalayas are growing at 1+ inch per year because the Indian subcontinent is ramming itself into northern Asia. This is happening everywhere all the time. it's much too slow for us to see any change in the next 100,000 years but it happens. The earth is mobile. It moves, it flexes, it scurries around.

What's the question?

the meteor that took out the dinosaurs was so immense that at the moment of impact it was still miles outside of our atmosphere.
Continental drift happened through a vast amount of natural occurences
we're still moving today at something like 1 and a half centimeters annually
though because no one was alive back then it will always come down to speculation

There is one aspect that you fail to look at. Take away all of the evidence of similar rocks along the shorelines, similar plant life with a few evolutionary differences, and animal fossils that do the same way. The Pangea Theory is sill supported not using any of those aspects. We have been able to map out most of the earth faults where terrain is made and pushed out. You can find maps or globes that can show you where these lines run and which direction the land is pushed. We have made calculations on how long it takes to move a certain distance over a given period of time. All that was needed to be done was trace the continents and small islands backwards through time assuming that tectonic speed remained constant. Doing so, it was fairly simple to see how the continents likely were formed before breaking. But there is more to it than that. 
The age of the oldest known rocks were what was used to determine how far back in time they would go. Again, assuming that the tectonic speed remained constant, it was found that Pangea from the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. Of course, the world is older than that. Tracing the tectonic movement back further, Pangea wasn't the first Super-continent. The first one (according to this particular research) was assembled around 2.0 Ga. This continent is named Columbia or Nuna. There are quite a few steps in between Columbia and Pangea, and I would take way too much space describing it, and I have a feeling most would quit reading if I went on. 
One last thing, saying a hypothesis or theory is 'proved' is incorrect in science terms. You don't prove a theory or hypothesis. A hypothesis is just an educated guess at an outcome. A theory is simply what someone proposes as an explanation as to why something is, how something works, how something happened, etc. that has gone through many experiments attempting to disprove it, but failed to do so. So though you can disprove it, the most you can do other than that is fail to disprove it. The reason for this is because a scientist will not want to assume there is no way to change something. Things we have accepted as fact in the science world get disproved often, revolutionizing the science world. So remember not to state that the theory or hypothesis is 'proved'. Otherwise, you are saying it is impossible for anything to argue with it.

The Earth is very old, so in my opinion the Pangaea super continent did exist.

I remember talking about this a long time ago in Grade school. At first I didn't know what Pangaea was until my teacher show me a picture of it, and to this day, it was the most surprising thing to learn about.

I learned about pangaea in the..... 6th grade I believe? Anyway, from the bit that I can remember; there's a theory out there that the world's land was all put together (I already find this interesting because where could the water source have been?). Then one day, it all broke apart from plate techtonics.

catfight09 : Um... the water source was all around it, much like it is today. The world was still 3/4 water... the difference was that all the land was in one place instead of spread out.

And the Super Continents are cyclical... in fact Columbia/Nuna is not the oldest, it's the fourth or fifth oldest (Ur is the oldest confirmed continent at 3 billion years ago and it is theorized that  Vaalbara is oldest at 3.6 Ga ago)

catfight09 : Also keep in mind that the Earth didn't always have land above water. Islands are formed by tectonic activity where land collides along the fault lines, pushing the land upward. Eventually, the lands got pushed upward to the point where the first land above water appeared.