Conspiracy of Science – The Earth is in Fact Growing

Posted by Chris Parker | September 20, 2008 13


This is interesting. This guy, Neal Adams has a theory that the Earth has been growing over time and that the theory of “continental drift” is bogus. This has no real implications Biblically, as the Bible does not address whether or not the continents have drifted apart -or whether the planet is in fact growing/expanding. There is no such thing as “subduction” claims the author: “In geology, a subduction zone is an area on Earth where two tectonic plates meet and move towards one another, with one sliding underneath the other and moving down into the mantle, at rates typically measured in centimeters per year.” Wikipedia

One thing that a growing planet would explain, were it true, is why the planet’s gravity was apparently so much weaker in the past than it is today. (If that were not true, birds with 26 foot wingspans would never have gotten off the ground and dinosaurs would not have been able to even lift their necks above the ground). In the past, many animals besides dinosaurs were of mega size. (Click Here)

This video does an impressive job of demonstrating that the planet has grown (by shrinking it) and it appears that this theory fits the data better than “continental drift” does. We don’t agree with the author’s age of earth assumptions but it’s still an interesting theory…




(I am quite serious about this. I’m not angry nor do I disrespect geology. In fact I’m saying geology is the key science that may and must now open the door to all of science’s future this century, and it’s a damn shame. Geology doesn’t take its responsibility seriously.)

If there was a time, friend geologist, to challenge me, this is the time. Perhaps the last time before I publicly challenge the last 40 years of wrong geological theory before it‘s built up again. My main target:

There is no subduction. No plates subduct. Subduction is unscientific and untrue, the ramifications of which are world shaking. And… the Earth grows! (You may have heard this before, so I caution you. This is not your father’s Earth expanding theory.) Earth is growing, not expanding, and therein lies the past-error who’s answer lies in physics and not geology. Still here we mainly talk geology.

Click here to read the rest of this article by Neal Adams; A CHALLENGE TO ALL GEOLOGISTS ON EARTH

Unable to post comment? Email to

13 Responses

  • Administrator


    I find Adams’ hypothesis interesting, but with a few holes.

    The time scale is unacceptable, of course. Have you read Cataclysm! by D. S. Allan and J. B. Delair (Bear&Co., 1997)? They aren’t creationists, but their model of what happened during the Deluge is fascinating, meticulous, and startling.

    I disagree on their causative agent, but, basically, the earth’s crust was fractured; the land-masses and seas re-arranged (cf. map on p. 82); the axis tilted from perpendicular; and the crust shifted up to 30 degrees (vide Hapgood). The problem of gigantism (and longevity) before the Deluge is a heavy one, which you and Ted Holden seem to be among the few who have noticed (I can’t seem to get ahold of Ted).

    Adams’ supposition that a smaller Earth would have lower gravity makes sense until you throw in the concept of mass. According to current physical theory, to decrease the planet’s gravity, its mass would have to be decreased. Coming from the direction Adams does, if you expand the planet, you have to add mass to increase its gravity.

    Where does the added mass come from–God?

    I agree with you and Ted, but I think there might be other explanations (a well-known creation scientist tried to tell me gigantism was due to increased oxygen in the atmosphere!). I’m way out of my league here, but there are some electrostatic and electro-gravitic hypotheses that just might account for the gravity problem.

    I’ve begun wrestling with some of these problems on my blog . . . God help us all!–

  • Administrator

    Dear Daniel,

    Thanks for the comments. They are good ones. I found the video fairly presuasive–or at least to the level of; “hey, might there be something to this”? As I said in my email, if in fact the continents fit together with minimal twisting or manipulation–that’s difficult to refute.

    As a matter of fact, I understand that in bolstering the theory of continental drift, that certain continents are “resized” and or distorted. True?

    It’s an interesting topic and I will look for Cataclysm on Amazon since I have not read it and it sounds interesting.

    I apologize for the problems you had posting your comments. My anti-spam software may be filtering out all comments!

    If anyone else has that problem, send your comment to: s8intcom@comcast,net and I’ll get it posted.

  • Administrator


    Hmmm. This liitle quote seems to suggest that the mass of an objects planet (say a giant bird) is one of the factors in it’s weight, but that it’s weight is also impacted by the planet’s diameter. I’m not 100% sure that this applicableto the problem you raised with respect to Adam’s hypothesis but..what do you think?

    “1. Canned Gavity
    However, the relative weight of an object depends not only the mass of the planet/moon (and therefore its gravity) but also on the planet/moon’s size…


    The relative weight of an object on each planet or moon is calculated by dividing the planet or moon’s average mean density by Earth’s (Earth’s is 5.52 g/cm3). This percentage is then multiplied by the planet or moon’s diameter divided by that of Earth’s (12,756 km). Many basic astronomy texts report planetary diameters using the Earth’s diameter as 1.”…

  • Administrator

    From Bob Davidson

    His explanation for the source of the extra mass is found here: Extra Mass Explanation

    “An aside….you may fairly ask how this matter can be created. It’s created at the plasma core of all planets, moons, and suns by a process that is so common that science has a name for it, “pair production!” It’s how all matter is made from energy.”

  • Administrator

    From: Dan Moore

    Whatever the cause of the Deluge, and whatever the exact timing, the conditions on Earth before the event are of great interest.

    As I have said elsewhere, I divide our existence on this planet into two epochs: Protohistory (from Creation to the Flood) and History (from the Flood to the present). “Prehistory” implies a time when history was not recorded. I believe writing came into use before the Flood; it may have fallen into disuse for a while after the Flood. Therefore, this, too, is a meaningless term.

    All Lyell-Agassiz-Darwin (LAD) divisions are fictions, fabrications, and misinterpretations. Many traditions speak of a “golden age” in the far past, before the cataclysm that re-arranged our planet. Earth’s axis may well have been perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic, causing little seasonal variation and greater, spring-like temperate zones.

    But, as you and Ted Holden have pointed out, the problem of gigantism seems to indicate that the gravity may have been less. Even the plants grew to gigantic sizes. Neal Adams’ model, if planetary density were conserved, could explain this . . . but where would the mass come from to expand the planet to its present size?

    Only God creates ex nihilo; we cannot. Saying “God did it” is, perhaps, an evasion–and unanswerable. The problem still remains.

    In His Name.–

  • Administrator


    I think that your view of pre-flood vs post flood history is a good one. In regard to the physics of “Adam’s idea, that’s above my pay grade. However, he does at least attempt to discuss it by asserting that energy is converted into matter through a process called “pair production” as mentioned above by Bob Davidson.

    How credible that is as a mechanism is as I say beyond me but at least he’s not claiming that it is ex nihilo.

  • Administrator

    From: Timothy J. Medsker

    Genesis 10:25, look it up, I think you will be quite surprised to see that
    perhaps the earth was divided by God and is actually recorded in the Holy

  • Administrator


    I”m aware of that scripture. As you may know, when reading that passge, “continental drift” is not neccessarily the first thing that would come to mind. Bible readers have interpreted that verse in various ways; that this was the time when men were dispersed through the Tower of Babel saga for instance. Some believe that the passage more accurately means that this was when the world was “mapped” or charted into its various regions.

    All I know is that Pelegwas named Peleg because that was when the earth was “divided” …..

  • Administrator

    From Dan Moore:

    All.–I believe the above interpretation of the scripture is accurate. I don’t believe it refers to the crust of the Earth at all, but rather to a survey of the Earth after the Deluge. Peleg’s name (and I understand the novel expands on this) can mean “one who measures”–divides in the sense of gridding a map.

    According to Allan, Delair, and others, the Earth’s topography, its landmasses and oceans, had changed greatly. Only a force outside the Earth could do this. At this point the crust was fractured, not before.

    Charles Hapgood wrote Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings about the portolano maps of the middle ages. He and his graduate students demonstrated that the maps used projections and showed details unknown to middle-age cartography, such as Antarctica with ice-free coasts. Part of Peleg’s work?

    I looked up pair production on Wikipedia. It refers to electron-positron production when photons hit a nucleus. Momentum is conserved. Several physical tenets apply here, I believe: (1) matter and energy are interchangeable; (2) neither can be created or destroyed (except by God);

    (3) gravity is a function of mass, not size–density has nothing to do with it. Jupiter has a much lower density than Earth but much more mass; therefore, its gravity is greater. I may be a mathematical blindworm, but I don’t think pair production refers to the creation of mass.

    This still leaves the problem of gigantism. An eminent creation scientist told me gigantism happened because of increased oxygen in the atmosphere.

    Please! We need an interdisciplinary approach to this problem.–Dan Moore

  • Administrator

    From: Administrator,

    All. Try submitting your comments directly as I have disabled one of my spam detectors.

    I agree that an interdisciplinary approach is needed to assess this theory, Dan. I don’t even have a disciplinary approach. The one thing about the theory that I do find somewhat irresistible (if true) is that the continents all fit together seamlessly, on a smaller ball, without twisting or resizing.

    Perhaps they don’t fit together in actuallity the way Adam’s claims and that would be my first avenue of attack on this thing. If, the continents do fit together seamlessly on a smaller earth, then perhaps the gravity/mass problem needs a different solution (i.e. it has remained constant) and giantism is as you say related to an oxygen rich atmosphere or something like that.

  • While the theory of an expanding earth is interesting, there remains, I believe a problem with it. If the continents are moving apart because of an increase in the size of the earth, would that not reduce the size of mountains by spreading them, not force them upward? Yet, it is clear with the discovery of sea shells and former port cities at high altitudes, that the mountains have been/are being thrust upward. There is at least one physicist who believes that the entire universe, including every body within it, is rapidly expanding.

  • tHE cREWS

    all very interesting,somehow I wonder if we will any reaq cogreat ideas this side of eternty. In the past, I have heard simalur thories; however it is hard to fit them into real sience. It dependes on how you defin science and wich branch. I do agree that we need the interdisciplinary approach and not leave any stone unterned. I am look foward to reading more. Crewsalong

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.