No need. I know what confirmation bias is.
Speaking of confirmation bias, I think the geological community is guilty of that with the 'Pangea/continental drift' theory. They postulated the theory, then did everything they could to find evidences to prove it.
Frankly, I don't see that they began by making enough observations to reasonably put forth that theory in the first place. The theory was postulated 150 years ago. Well before geologists were aware of the deep sea trenches and fissures we're now aware of. Once they did make those discoveries, they had to come up with the subduction theory to explain how the earth could simultaneously be ripping apart, and remaining the same size.
In fact, the author goes into the subduction theory on his website, and explains that the entire theory is based upon one small, localized observation, which was then applied to the whole earth.
Anyway, I didn't mean to get into a long-winded argument about plate tectonics tonight. I just thought it was an extremely interesting video that would stimulate interest and discussion. Despite some of the flames tonight, I guess it hasn't been unproductive.
BZZT! Wrong again.
A non-geologist, Wegner, first postulated the theory of continental drift, and was largely derided because he could propose no logical mechanism for such to work.
It wasn't until we started remotely exploring the seafloor and discovered spreading centers and subduction zones that the mechanism became clear - that the continents moved on plates that include both oceanic and continental crust. It was a gradual process of acceptance of the theory due to accumulating evidence, not of making the evidence fit the theory. That is extremly well-documented.
A prime example is the formation of the Himalaya. The top of Mount Everest is oceanic sedimentary rock. That is rock that was from the ocean that used to be between the Indian continent and the Eurasian continent. Continental drift closed that ocean and the two continental masses collided, which is why the Himilaya are so high. Your guy's theory provides no viable mechanism to explain that.
And slivers of oceanic sediment caught between the two are present all over the Himalaya, as they are in mountain belts around the world - such as the ultra-mafic rocks such as serpentine, formed in oceanic crust, that form belts in the Piedmont, the core of an ancient mountain range. That was not determined by animations and amatuer theorists, it was determined by geologists going out into the field and getting actual rock samples - actual geology as opposed to the armchari type.
There are also pillow lavas formed at spreading centers found on land around the world as well.
So you show a lack of history of the theory of plate tectonics, of the rocks of mountain ranges and basic structural geology. Which is apparently why you are a sucker for this particular internet shyster.