Theory of pangea is foolish?

Correct conclusion: You know nothing about plate tectonics, Pangaea, plate movement or logical reasoning. Therefore, yes it is just you because other people actually understand the theory instead of making arrogant, uninformed assertions regarding it.

Firstly, oceanic crust can be destroyed under other plates as a result of subduction, a density driven process whereby the overlying crust becomes more dense than the mantle below it, causing it to sink. So the continents can move and we go to the second part of the flawed reasoning. New oceanic crust is created at mid ocean ridges where the crust splits apart and causes local decompression melting of the underlying mantle which then essentially flows up into the gap and solidifies to form new crust. Both of these processes are observed.

Conclusion: The crust is destroyed and new crust is formed at the same rate in other places, satisfying both the need for plate movement and a largely unchanging crust size.

Plate tectonic theory balances crust creation at ocean ridges with crustal destruction at subduction zones, so your criticism would only hold true to those areas lacking these features. The primary region this occurs is the Artic Ocean and surrounding continents. There should be a Himalayan type mountain range where the North American and Eurasian plates collide, but there is none. Furthermore, the two plates are connected by an under water ridge of continental crust between Siberia and Ellesmere Island in Canada. This strongly argues against any movement of these two continents. The Artic Ocean is almost completely surrounded by continental crust, only a narrow gap occurs where the Mid- Atlantic Ridge extends north into it. This ridge, in the Artic Ocean, is almost perpendicular to eastern North America and parallel to it to the west, and vice versa for the Eurasian plate. To make room for the creation of the Artic Ocean, either some large scale faulting splitting the two plates or major rotation of them would have to occur. There are no obvious faults to accomplish the first. The North American plate would have to rotate counterclockwise which is in direct opposition to the clockwise rotation required by the creation of the Atlantic Ocean.

Good for you for displaying independent critical thinking. This is so often squelched, intentionally or not, by our educational system. "Disruptive thinkers" are highly sought after in the high tech fields because innovation is essential for survival. But this is not the case in science were dogma often rules, setting back progress sometimes for decades.

You have reached a false conclusion by using a deeply flawed illustration of the actual mechanism. Table tops and cards are not at all good analogies for the mantle and crust plates or anything else involved. The Earth's mantle is not rigid over millennia nor is it stationary. The amount of movement of the continents is measurable and the evidence of past moves is overwhelming and multifaceted.

If you want, you can search your own illustrations on the web but:

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaur...

I admit, tl;dr. But It's not foolish, it makes incredible sense and there's evidence everywhere.

You can look at the pieces of the puzzle, they fit. You can look at the bones found from ancient animals, they are found in different continents that used to be together. And continental drift is a real thing, it's happening right now.

The plates under the sea also move. A theory is not started because one scientist thought about it, several scientist agree on it, and collected enough proof to pass it.

What's broken here is your attempt at deductive reasoning.

...