Do you have any material on the matter? I'd love to read more about it either whichway the arguments go. In the articles I saw it came across as quite conclusive and VERY convincing though I read up on these things only at and for leisure which I am somehow seeming to get less and less time for.
I think this was what you meant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_8n7s3QpqY
Much of the evidence he sites revolves around the idea that new crust is constantly being produced in the rifts between plates, which nobody disputes in the slightest (imagine if someone were to champion subduction without it - they'd have to beleive in a shrinking world!) also, he states that there are a great many more marine fossils discovered on land, sure - its a lot easier to look for them here, for one thing, but the video shows that India was always attached to Asia - which makes the presence of marine fossils high in Nepal hard to explain.
http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology_visual.html/
(Actually two plates, once seperated by sea, are colliding and pushing the old sea floor to the sky)
Crucially, the theory fails either to account for geological activity (like earthquakes) at non-productive plate boundries, which we would call subduction zones in places like NZ or Japan, or to explain exactly how it is that the earth is growing. Is it actually composed of an as yet unidentified sort of matter that actually expands as it cools? (H2O solidifiying is extremly unusual in that it does expand, by about 9%, as it cools, but the proposed growth is much, much greater even than this.) is it somehow increasing in mass by a process we do not understand?
hang on just found this - she's a bit more lucid than me
http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/11/...ut-a-growing-problem-with-science-journalism/
Ah! here we go, if you only follow one link, follow this one
http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.com/2011/01/expandinggrowing-earth.html
Especially the last three minutes... sorry I didn't find you anything to actually READ, hope this suffices.