Orac; Why don't you make some attempt to understand a theory before commenting on it.
What annoys me is that you have clearly made no attempt (at all) to understand this theory.
So, it is not surprising that you know next to nothing about it.
How is this theory different from the giant impact theory?
Let's start with:
1) the impact causes continental drift
2) the impact causes the Pacific basin
3) the impact creates the Pacific ring of fire
4) the impact raises the ring of mountains around the Pacific
5) the impact creates the Himalayas
6) the impact takes continental crust that completely covers the planet PreEarth and distributes it in patchwork fashion over the surface of the Earth
None of these things are claimed by the giant impact theory.
The giant impact theory claims to create the moon, however,
7) Mansfield's impact does not claim to create the Moon.
These are not minor differences in the theories.
Now,... why does the ancient continent of Pangaea fit so neatly within the central circle of this map;
See above for solution.
