The earth is expanding

Before I start my final rebuttal and conclusion, I would just like to note how much I enjoyed this debate, and would be willing to do another in the future, if you would os please :) 1. Perhaps you did not understand the concept of seafloor spreading, which I explained in argument 3. If you still don't understand the concept, here is a link to the Wikipedia page which excellently explains the issue: (https://en.wikipedia.org...) You said that the video debunks subduction, but it absolutely does not, in fact it only mentions sea floor spreading as a lie, but doesn't confront WHY it is a lie at all, and just goes on to explain the same bogus theory as before. You also mention the Ural mountains as proof of "folding crust during expansion," however whenever something is expanded, it doesn't crease together, it UNBUCKLES! Think of a loose, shaped rubber band. When it is loose, it displays it's shape, however when it is stretched out the creases become circular. If the Earth is expanding, then there would be no be squeezed up, just the opposite, it frees up space. According to your idea of how these mountains formed, this would be going against common sense. Also, the Ural Mountains were NOT formed by subduction, but rather a long time ago by collision with another continent squeezing it tight. 2. Although more closely related to raptors than some other types of dinosaurs, raptors split off from birds (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...) and became different creatures. Raptors were tyrannosauroids and split off from birds' evolutionary path about halfway through, therefore they went extinct. 3. "Nature can only push, it can't pull. Pulling requires intelligence and leverage. Still, pulling is just an illusion because its the aetheric pressure that is pushing things together. Magnets and water are pushed by aetheric wind which is generated by the qualities of the matter concerned. A magnet is just a smaller fractal of a planet, sun or galaxy which all have a positive and negative aether flow direction which is perpendicular to the rotating axis." I would argue the opposite, that pull requires no intelligence because things are attracted to it, but push does because this pushing would required to perfectly orbit. Also, this 'Pushing, not pulling' theory has not onc been back up by any credited evidence you have given, therefore, it is extremely unsound. 4. "The only way the universe can store energy for billions of years and then suddenly release that energy is through frictionless spin energy. The logic of inevitable consequences dictates this must be so. It is difficult to prove this because this is a sub-atomic phenomenon. The equation E=MC2 verifies my assumptions." I still have no idea what this 'spin battery' you are talking about is. Despite all my searching, I have not found ANYTHING on such a topic, nor have you provided anything. However, upon some research on your profile, I concluded that this spin theory is... of your invention. (http://www.debate.org...) I know this because you call it 'my' theory and have no sources to back up the theory, because there are none. Because you have no... known of science background, and testing has been done to this theory, I don't think it is valid to use in an argument, unless that argument is about the existence of it itself. Of course there is spin in quantum mechanics, but this has NOTHING to do with glucose and energy. 5. The source you cited is quite interesting and does make a decent case for having some sort of nuclear reactor in the middle of the Earth... however, it NOWHERE states that it CREATES magma. The article is about how the heat is generated and nowhere mentions anything about the ridiculous theory that you can create mass out of nowhere, or extract it from somewhere else without any sort of black hole or wormhole. 6. Saturn is not 'becoming a sun', simply because it gives off that heat. Once again, your source, although credible, does not support your argument. At all. The source simply STATES that it gives off that much energy. The idea that something can turn into a sun naturally is preposterous, because of the studies we already did on suns. We know a lot about suns and how they transform, and NOT ONCE have we seen something like this. CONCLUSION: Although my opponent proposed several interesting theories, his sources were often not related, not credible, or often even both. Even the video that was a lousy excuse for burden of concept is from a COMIC BOOK ARTIST! I'm not joking, look at his channel! (https://www.youtube.com...) Also, my opponent appears to have several of his own theories, which is ridiculous because my opponent does not seem to have any reasonable background in physics, nor has he done, or at least stated, any of his testing. However, the biggest hole in his theory is that there is no place where this extra matter is coming from! As we know, you CAN create matter from energy, but you need matter to create energy! All in all, I really enjoyed this debate and would love to do another if my opponent so wishes ;)