Someone must be reading New Scientist on a regular basis as at http://crev.info/2017/01/secular-ocean-theory-evaporates/ … they are once again blinking in the headlights according to the chap at this link. This time the story involves the origin of the oceans – where did all that water come from. We might well ask as the dominant theory for some time has been that it was delivered by comets and meteorites. This idea had an origin in the belief that comets were dirty snowballs with a high water content, a proposal that has taken a bit of a battering itself of late (although Comet Churyumov Gerasimenko does emit water vapour – as observed by the Rosetta mission spacecraft). However, that is not entirely what the criticism is about as it presents us with a paradox. The theory of an early bombardment of the earth by the break-up of proto planets and numerous meteorites presents us with a world of molten rock and heavy volcanic activity one would think. A new study presented in Nature (Jan 25th) says the building blocks of the earth were in essence very similar to the chondritic meteorites that bombarded the earth, implying the earth must have got most of its water gradually, during the accretion period, rather than at the end of the process (by distant cosmic bodies such as comets). This is where New Scientist comes in as he extracts the following, 'earth's water must have arrived here earlier than we thought' and continues by saying the arrival of water on earth is a mystery. The favoured theory is that it arrived after the core had formed 4.5 billion years ago. Now, on the basis of the Nature piece (above) water must have arrived earlier and conceivably could be part of the accretion material. This may run true if there is a lot of water deep inside the earth – as indicated in other studies. Can water have been syphoned out of the interior in order to create the oceans? The guy at the link advises his readers to read the Bible as Genesis has the answer – and the order of events. It's an interesting idea that water may arrived with the rocks that accreted into our planet – but if so why did they also not accrete likewise in the moon? Isotopically the earth, moon, and early meteorites are similar – presumably with a similar origin (in the early solar system). Instead, we may turn our headlights onto the accretion theory. Is this another consensus theory that is not as strong as it is alleged?