"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.
No need. I know what confirmation bias is.
Speaking of confirmation bias, I think the geological community is guilty of that with the 'Pangea/continental drift' theory. They postulated the theory, then did everything they could to find evidences to prove it.
Frankly, I don't see that they began by making enough observations to reasonably put forth that theory in the first place. The theory was postulated 150 years ago. Well before geologists were aware of the deep sea trenches and fissures we're now aware of. Once they did make those discoveries, they had to come up with the subduction theory to explain how the earth could simultaneously be ripping apart, and remaining the same size.
In fact, the author goes into the subduction theory on his website, and explains that the entire theory is based upon one small, localized observation, which was then applied to the whole earth.
Anyway, I didn't mean to get into a long-winded argument about plate tectonics tonight. I just thought it was an extremely interesting video that would stimulate interest and discussion. Despite some of the flames tonight, I guess it hasn't been unproductive.