The Expanding Earth theory must have been getting under somebody's skin as the debate at www.skepticblog.org/2009/11/23/no-growing-earth-but-a-growing-problem-wi… … appears to resort to the current fashion of attacking the messenger rather than the theory. Actually, there is not a great deal of difference in the Expanding Earth theory than that of Plate Tectonics, in that they are both based on looking at a map of the world and realising that at some point the continents must have been closer. There is no reason to think the Earth has been a constant size for billions of years – or that processes going on inside the Earth, as yet not fully understood to any degree of certainty, might be somewhat different than imagined. It is the fact that people are so entrenched when you go to these kind of blogs that really flummoxes the people with a sense of real sceptism. I've also noticed they like using the word sceptic/skeptic in their titles – as if they are sceptical. They are usually not. They are more likely to be mainstream – and the same goes for skeptical blogs in climate science. They are usually god fearing co2 believers rather than people who want to know a little more about just how co2 is such a powerful element of the atmosphere. Worth having a browse if you can afford the time but bear in mind neither theory is orientated towards catastrophism.
NASA has recently declared the Earth is in fact not expanding in a detectable and continuous process – see www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110817120527.htm. However, we may note this does not exclude expansion during catastrophic events – intermittent expansion (or even very rare episodes of expansion). Why should the size of the Earth be constant? Do some people like constants because it makes equations and working out things more easy, and provides a sense of knowing the past when we can never really know the past. Tidy minds and all that.