What I've seen at that site is a lot more compelling and convincing than the theory that the continents are drifting around the planet, crashing and bumping into one another. No one has yet explained how that is even possible.
Take a look at the video where he shows the expansion of North America. When he runs that expansion in reverse, you can see all the fragments of Northern Canada fit back together like the pieces of a jig-saw puzzle. That's not just theoretical. They fit together precisely. I don't call that bias.
"I don't call that bias."
You aren't following. I wasn't talking about being biased, I was talking about a logical error called "confirmation bias". Look it up.
Science is not about judging a theory by what you find most compelling. A theory is judged by whether it survives falsification.
You can present a compelling and convincing case that the world is flat or that the sun goes around the earth. All you have to do is present only the confirming evidence. That doesn't make it scientific.
As for which is more compelling, which again, is not the point. Seriously? We measure plates moving around. This theory demands that new matter is continuously created inside the planet. If you think that makes more sense then your BS meter is broken.