Initially I wasn’t going to give anymore attention to this topic than my original post, “Just for kicks”. However, a fellow geoblogger, Cian Dawson, suggested that I put up some links refuting the Expanding Earth Hypothesis. In retrospect, that is what I should have done in the first place. To challenge an idea and not offer a valid counter argument can be rather disingenuous. So, here are a few links with information that refute the Expansion Hypothesis. One was provided by Cian and the other three were provided by Brian Romans (pre-move to Wired) from his blog over at Clastic Detritus.
A few of my own links:
Possible Subduction on Venus: (nothing conclusive, but still food for thought)
A simple Google scholar search will yield more papers that have proven the existence of subduction, either directly or indirectly. To those that would advocate the Expanding Earth Hypothesis I pose a few questions: How does your paradigm explain orogeny? How about the formation of the Himalayas and the Andes? Rifting doesn’t produce mountains on the same scale as subduction. Look no further than the Basin and Range Province for proof. How do you explain the existence of blueschist? It only forms in accretionary prisms which are found exclusively in subduction zones.
If the Expansion Hypothesis can explain such things, and do so with ample, verifiable evidence, then maybe it can be seen as a direct challenge to the Theory of Plate Tectonics. I personally doubt that will ever happen, but science isn’t based on belief, but on hard evidence. Prove it and we will believe.