The earth is expanding

1a." A pathetic excuse for not finding any sea life fossils in the ocean. If they can find oil 3.5 kms under the ocean, then, I am confident they could find at least one or two ancient sea life fossils." This is a really silly argument against not finding fossils because in order to make such a comparison, you must not understand how seismic surveying works. Here is a quick overview: A ship tows a compressed air gun that shoots sound waves that penetrate deep into the rock and carry an array of sensors behind them that time how long it takes for the sound waves to return. This creates relatively detailed maps showing where things like oil, water, and different kinds of rock are. However, these maps are still too rough to find individual small fossils, which in general are also buried quite deep underground. Also, this is not performed in the ocean, but on the geological continent. The continents are not just what is above water, because there is actually a huge portion of the continent below sea level, look at this map: (https://upload.wikimedia.org...) So it is easier to find out oil sections in relatively shallow waters. Since you seem to like providing videos as your evidence, I will do the same. Here is a great video explaining how off-shore seismic surveying works: () As I said before, we currently lack a massive amount of technology needed to explore the undersea floor. You also state that dinosaurs went extinct, partially because they could no longer resist the pull (or rather push, but we will get into that later...) of the ever increasing Earth. However, if this was the case, how come other smaller dinosaurs, such as raptors, also went extinct? The meteor gave mammals a chance, because mammals were generally smaller than reptiles. This allowed mammals to evolve, and use traits such as their superior intelligence to gain superiority. The main reasons why humans overtook the T-Rex is because they did not exist in the same time period, and that humans have far superior intelligence and senses, allowing them to, over time, easily conquer anything, besides our rather weak body with inventions and built up knowledge. You say that every animal from that era has a smaller living equivalent today, and this is because, once again, they were smaller! One question you may ask is, why is being smaller a benefit, if there is no expanding Earth? Because the meteor covered up the Sun, which made it harder to hunt, but also made these small mammals less available, because they died off. However, a smaller amount was still able to sustain themselves of plants, and the carnivores needed less because they themselves were smaller. 1b. Here you say that gravity must be pushing, rather than pulling which I find absolutely ridiculous. If there is a force pushing some things toward a certain object, would that object be pulling? You also say that you need some sort of rope to connect some things which is garbage. You can connect things like magnets, or water to itself (via hydrogen bonding.) This is an extremely poor analogy. You cite ANOTHER YouTube video, by some wanna be physicist with only 2,000 views. I'm not totally dismissing his ideas, because I don't have the level of mathematical understanding to comprehend and debate such an idea, however, I can say that we already have proven gravity because it is not scientific THEORY it is scientific LAW. I don't think your video is a very credible source. It is not tested and tried. No other scientists have even acknowledged the idea... please provide some more reputable sources... 1c. I still cannot comprehend the ridiculous idea of a "spin battery." Glucose is not a "spin battery," glucose is a simple sugar compound. It is not a "spin battery." If you want to even ENTERTAIN the idea of such a ridiculous idea, at least show me SOME sort of source! There isn't even a ridiculous YouTube video attached to this! 1d. So here you simply link to a video.. about PHOTOGRAPHY. This is to the point where it is humorous. I understand photons are not tried and tested, but there is evidence of something that would at least have similar traits, so the idea that photons do not exist could be argued... with lots of credible sources and a complex physics background. Neither of which you have. 2. Oh my God, I do not know what to say! NUCLEAR REACTIONS DO NOT, IN ANY WAY, CREATE... LAVA! I don' even know how you came up with this one! And we have earthquakes because of plates colliding!