I didn't say much earlier because holy shit this quote is indecipherable. But now that I've looked at the source of the quote Haipule appears to be conflating the formation of supercontinents with the formation of the Earth, among other things. Haipule's first response to Anomalocaris sheds light on his poor science understanding:
Really? The evolution of the earth is a super continent? That divided itself through plate tectonics? Really?
Please 'splain the impossible!
Impossible? Like the Bible? Why Do you think so?
You know how much I truly respect your intellect but, the earth has an inner core and an outer core. Super Continent is flat earth revisited. And as stupid as theology! Expanding Earth Theory makes perfect sense! Small earth + water = large earth and plate tectonics!
I know that that is pseudo science for now. But it makes sense of things observed.
He buys into discarded 19th century ideas about continental drift so he really has no understanding of how the Earth formed or what drives continent motion or formation. At least he's nice though.
#1. The earth formed from gaseous matter ejected from the sun.
Not exactly, the planets, asteroids, and other objects in the solar system formed from the material in the protoplanetary disk that surrounded the sun as it was forming.
#2. The earth was bombarded with space rocks and ice balls
Sounds like you are describing the late heavy bombardment.
Jackboots: #3. Oceans and Supercontinent, Bitch.
Continental formation was not something that happened immediately after the Earth's formation. For quite some time there would have been volcanic outcrops and islands poking above the waves, but they would have been easily eroded and were geologically short lived. Water that was subducted along faults would have later led to the formation of more modern rocks (like granite) which are less dense than rock that composed the previous islands and literally float atop the mantel, rather than just being above water level. In addition to being less dense they would have been more resistant to erosion, some of these first pieces of continental rock still exist.
I think you should go the quote source to get a decent explanation for it. In the quote source Anomalocaris goes on to describe the supercontinent cycle, Pangea was just one in a cycle of several supercontinents. So in a sense it's not really special, it wasn't even the first. The only thing I disagree with Anomalocaris with is calling the accretion of material that formed the Earth 'expanding earth', expanding earth is pseudoscientific nonsense and the two should never be confused. I think Anomalocaris does indeed know the difference, and he/she just said it that way as a 'for the sake of argument' kind of thing, but I still feel the need to point it out. Also Anomalocaris is a sweet user name and it was a bad-ass animal.
Another good point is brought up by Whateverist:
No one is saying that a supercontinent was a starting condition.
This is on point!
But then Whateverist goes onto state:
Irregularities in the surface of the earth - mountain peaks, ocean trenches, continental masses - actually amounts to very little. The earth is actually more nearly a perfect sphere than your average billiard ball. What irregularities there are can be attributed to the extreme heat resulting in circulation of molten material which disturbs the surface.
However this bit isn't entirely true, as its the fact that continental crust is lighter than the mantel and rather thick that allows it to sit above sea level so easily. But Whateverist is right about convection in the Earth's mantel leading to mountain and oceanic trench formation.