It's disingenuous to leave out data.
Well, as a YEC it would not actually be disingenuous of you to leave out data that you don't think
are data. But it would make your map fairly useless to the people who think they
are data.
For me, the map would be most useful if I could flip through it
by time and see what was present in the Jurassic, and what was there in the Cretaceous, and so forth. If you take out the element of time 'cos of your religious beliefs, then it will be a lot less useful to 99% of the people who would otherwise be interested in it.
I spent some time yesterday thinking about the algorithm to move GPS coordinates back in time and on a round earth. My brain began to hurt as I started working out coordinate frame translations/rotations over the earth. So, now I'm thinking about a 2D map of the world as a good starting point. I think it would suffice until someone smarter came along.
You should definitely start with a spherical map, and translate it to 2D. It'll be easier in the long run.
Now, the math has been done. There's this thing called Euler's fixed point theorem which tells you how to represent rigid motions on the surface of a sphere. One of the big breakthroughs in the development of plate tectonics was when a geologist finally found out about this bit of math and used a computer to apply it to plate motions.
But if you tried to use a 2D map as your basic data, then you'd want a formula that would describe plate motions while
also taking into account the deformations caused by mapping a sphere onto a plane
all at once. It will be much simpler for you to apply one formula describing plate motions on a sphere, and a second formula to map the sphere onto a plane. The first bit is quite easy, and the second bit is so easy that you could in an afternoon provide the users with a choice of their favorite map projections. But trying to do both these things together in a single formula would exhaust the patience of an archangel. Don't try.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.