There are still holes with this theory but it is interesting and highly plausible IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth

It's relatively accepted that stars grow and that the universe itself grows or expands I think... so why not planets too?  The strongest argument against this theory is probably subduction which proponents of the expanding earth just seem to ignore or deny.  The core samples showing how old the crust is works for either theory.
<center>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oJfBSc6e7QQ&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed>


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EdavRmR-2YE&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed>
</center>

I don't think they've adequately dealt with the water.  If the amount of water is a constant then that would mean most of the land mass was under water when it was one connected land mass.  The amount of water on the planet over time probably isn't a constant.  If it's not a constant then where does additional water come from?  Comet impacts??  Dunno about that.

Also, if you can accept the theory that the earth was smaller when the dinosaurs roamed and that larger masses have higher gravitational forces than smaller masses, then you must conclude that the Earth's gravity was less at the time of the dinosaurs.  This would allow those giant creatures to be much more nimble than the currently accepted theory does.

I've always liked the theory that the Gulf of Mexico is a giant impact crater... don't know that it really relates much to this.  I'm debating whether or not I should put up anything regarding the hollow Earth theory.  It's interesting too but there's really only one thing that makes me consider it plausible... and that evidence is kind of shaky or easily argued against IMO.