Robert sent in a link to https://crev.info/2026/09/sbr-earth-began-with-water/ … which is a Creationist take on a new research paper that claims Earth had water from the beginning. The Creationist point is that this agrees with Genesis and the idea of a watery void. Hence, science has inadvertently caught up with the Biblical narrative. All very droll one might say but the Creation story in the Bible is more likely to be a post catastrophe scenario rather than anything to do with the actual beginnings of the Earth itself. However, Robert’s point is not that he agrees with the idea explored at the link but that it does show up that a lot of mainstream science is now ‘too big to fail’ and the new paper will be largely ignored. For example, it would put to bed the accepted mainstream view that the Earth was involved in a collision with a planet sized body and the result was the creation of our moon. However, a new paper also raises doubt on that as well as the moon, it has been found, has a remnant of magnetism in its core. In other words, it must be a captured body. Too early to see how that one develops. Its easy to get pessimistic about mainstream sticking to its guns – even when contradicted by modern space telescopes. A case in point is the designation of comets as dirty snowballs even though space probes have found comets to be quite dense. Conglomerates perhaps but not snowballs. That idea is central to the mainstream mantra that water arrived on Earth via comets and meteorites and filled the oceans etc. In fact, that is the focus of the new research paper that the Creationists latched on to. A dry Earth, Robert notes, requires trillions of comets and meteors bringing water to Earth, a somewhat fantastical scenario. So, worth looking at the new research paper on the subject of water on Earth – or H2O [hydrogen and oxygen].
The research paper was published in Nature Astronomy on 27th March 2026. It turned up on the Creationist web site nearly six months later. Theories on the formation of the Earth rely on an accreting mass with origins in both the inner and outer solar system. The authors claim this is not true and that Earth was formed only from material within the inner solar system. Mostly because Jupiter represented a barrier, or gate. That is true of nowadays but it was not thought of being true of events 4 billion years ago. The authors disagree with that diagnosis. Earth accreted from material not too far away from where it is now. You may note this is contrary to Electric Universe thinking but that is not of concern here. It is the water that is the subject of dispute. Not only that the authors also claim Earth formed from a coherent source – not from a myriad of little meteorites and small planetary like cosmic bodies. It includes gases such as hydrogen as a major component. They also claim the inner and outer planets are more stable than once thought. See https://nature.com/articles/s41550-026-02824-7 ….
Robert suggests the ideas of VN Larin may be relevant and worth looking at – providing a link to https://webarchive.org/web/20230609221158/http://www.eearthk.com/article03/ … or just go to the web site https://eearthk.com/article03 …. which was included in the Expanding Earth Knowledge web site. The author of the link is an expanding earth advocate that disputes plate tectonics, by the name of CW Hunt. He only quotes Larin, among others, and therefore it is unlikely Larin favoured such a model. On the other hand, without checking him out that might not be true. The expanding Earth model does have certain points in its favour as it would do away with the unlikely scenario Earth witnessed multiple Pangaea formations and break-ups in order to account for geological pieces of plate turning up in unexpected places. Uniformitarianism, via plate tectonics, seems to have created for itself a very complicated model of Earth’s past. For example, mainstream might say it is impossible for the earth to expand as it cannot be measured as doing so in the present day. That contradicts the obvious rebuff that it expands only on the rare occasion, possibly coinciding with major extinction and catastrophic events. It then goes quiet again – a bit like evolution that goes into rapid rebuild mode following the extinction of species in such an event. As there was an abundance of catastrophic events, there may have been an equal proportion of expansionary advances as a result of release of internal material that would include hydrogen – and oxygen. Water forming gases. Hunt suggests if the Earth was predominantly dominated by hydrogen and then its gradual escape to space would have led to the oxidised carapace – to you and me, the crust, or lithosphere. A hard coating on the surface of the Earth. It would also have assisted in the formation of the oceans and the oxidised atmosphere. At the same time the interior of the Earth would still be dominated by hydrogen. Is this a feasible theory?