That assumption is false.
The sun does not rise in the east.
The sun appears in the east due to the revolution of the earth on it's axis, in relation to the sun.
Thank you for clarifying that.
However, it would still be an assumption that the sun will appear in the east each morning.
At the same time, it is a pretty well supported assumption. Other assumptions maybe not so.
Science agrees with the Bible that the land mass was in in one area surrounded by water.
Well, I would classify that as an assumption. Frankly, it would be a generalization that is based on (as usual) limited data. So are you saying that the Bible has made an assumption? Can you give us the supporting data used in the Bible?
Science and the Bible agree that the land mass was separated into the places they are today.
So, the Bible actually tells us where North America is?
Does the Bible also tell us that the sky is blue?
So the only problem is how quickly the land mass was divided.
I could think of a lot more questions than that. One such that is receiving attention these days is why oceanic subduction zones start where they are.
How do we know when Pangea existed?
From paleomagnetic reconstructions.
IF the plates have always moved at the same speed Pangea existed about 250 million years ago and began to break up about 150 million years ago.
So, the observation that plates move at a certain speed (i.e., an observation) is trumped by the
possibility that they could have moved faster?
Nevertheless, we do have speed measurements based on radiometric dates of the ocean floor, so this is a supported assumption.
The oldest data for the speed of the movement of the plates dates back to 1974.
Actually, no. The ages of the ocean floor and attached islands show show us distance versus time ... that would be speed. Here, for instance, is a diagram of ages for the Hawaiian Islands.
Some plates are moving at higher rates than others.
Yes, and the highest relative velocities are about 20cm/y. There is no evidence for 'catastrophic plate tectonics'.
You only assume it to fit your biblical narrative.
Now just because the plates are moving at certain rates today does not mean they have always moved at those rates.
However, there is no evidence going back to the Triassic (and new evidence suggests longer) that there were huge departures from known rates. For instance, during the Cretaceous, we are pretty certain that rates were somewhat higher, but nothing like the numbers that YECs would like.
The steady movement for 150 million years is an assumption.
Well, that is not one of our assumptions. We know that there are higher rates in the geological record; just nothing like what you desire in you wildest assumptions.
The plates could have been moved to their present location in a nano second and just have not come to a complete stop yet. This is an assumption.
Such a displacement is not even an assumption. It is a fantasy. There are no forces on earth that could do that except magic.