The earth is expanding (part 2)

Thank you for that intriguing argument, Pro :) 1. My opponent still has not even TRIED to debunk my claims on 'where matter comes from.' Although I hope he eventually does at least attempt to seal this major hole in his argument, we can assume he has no rebuttal for it. In the mean time however, Pro has provided us a link to a video from a... not so credible source. A nameless YouTube channel with 10 subscribers. Assuming however that all the information in this video is correct, which is a plausible statement... it is still very debunk-able. First of all, the maps used are EXTREMLY crude and HANDRAWN! This is based on Wegner's original theory which is still correct, however because of a lack of capital and technology, Wegner was never able to create a map of Pangea comparable to those we have today. Here is a very detailed map: (http://eatrio.net...) If you didn't know, most of Central America is on it's own plate, the Caribbean plate. If you look on this map, it simply moves to the side of the map. Also, the so called "rock data" means nothing, as rock age and plates have no real connection between each other. The video you linked was using very basic and therefore inaccurate maps. 2. Here my opponent states that Pangea would make Earth very 'unstable.' Pro is not at all clear in what way this makes Earth unstable, how it makes Earth unstable, and how he can prove this. If you mean that earth is unstable becuase of it's shape... well that's simply ridiculous. Earth can't 'tip over,' if there is no gravity. My opponent also states that that it is "It is mathematically impossible that an early Earth have only one land mass because it defies the laws of probability" and this is false for many reasons. First of all, because there ISN'T just one land mass... it is many. There are eight major plates with many more minor and mini plates. Also, how would this be so improbable? You provide no reasoning on how or why it would be improbable, you just say that it is. 3. "The fact that most of the major fault lines occur in the middle of the world's oceans should be evidence enough to prove that Earth expansion is true. There may be a little bit of subduction on some coast lines in America. But this is not typical and is relatively rare phenomenon when considering the globe as a whole. Take Africa, Australia, Antarctica, Arctic, Green land, West coast of America, China, Russia, England and Ireland. No subduction!!!!!" I noticed you have said several times that there is 'no subduction', however you have never provided a credible source for this, LET ALONE even explain it! 4. "Thus, the continental drift theory is inconsistent and illogical. Why persist with an illogical theory when a logical and rational theory is available?" I'm not sure logical and rational is the right word. My opponent often ignores many of my questions and rebuttals, usually coming back with the same rebuttal that i have debunked several times. My opponent puts this perfectly, it's almost as if they were pretending to be me: "My opponent keeps ignoring the evidence. Evidence is very inconvenient to him, so he ignores it and hopes that it will go away. But, I am sorry opponent. The evidence won't go away and will keep coming back to haunt you into your grave." Keep in mind my opponent has not yet tackled my question, WHERE DOES ALL THE MASS COME FROM?