At https://phys.org/news/2025-04-scientists-evidence-theories-earth.html … This is an important theory and means there is no necessity to see water arriving from space on asteroids or comets. A breakthrough. Researchers now claim that water originated naturally, from hydrogen, and presumably oxygen, already present in the building blocks of the Earth. It was no fluke or accident. Space rocks were not required. No hydrated asteroids bombarding our planet. Will it be accepted?
Creationists are now challenging Plate Tectonics theories, it would seem. Robert sent in the link https://crev.info/205/04/tectonic-theories-and-timelines-shift-again/ … which refers back to the discovery that the composition of Earth’s first crust is very much the same as the present one. It has not changed over time [see earlier post on this subject]. Here, we may note, consensus science is defined as ‘evolutionary based education’. Brainwashing, if you like. Opposition to evolution is the centre stage at the web site, even though we only have a disjointed geological record. In a catastrophist model evolution occurs rapidly after each major event, and then slows down until the next one. At this Creationist web site evolution is the bogey man. It is about debunking evolution by using every new science story imaginable.
In spite of that the post does raise some intriguing questions that can be taken up and walked by catastrophist thinkers. The idea of subduction is central to Plate Tectonics theory. But, the new research has found NO evidence of subduction in the early Earth’s crust. Therefore it contradicts the prevailing theory. Earth’s crustal chemical signature seems to refute its existence. The post goes on to say that the other alternative theory is catastrophism. Actual catastrophes occurring in early Earth have become fashionable – but at a certain point in time they are said to have stopped. All has been serene and uniformitarian since then. Or mostly so. After 3.8 billion years ago catastrophes were muted. They are unwelcome. The author asks. What are the explanatory processes that led to a dramatic decrease in catastrophic meteor bombardment? Is there a scientific bias to accept catastrophism during the first half a billion years or so of geological history – that suddenly stopped. The author then goes on to provide an answer, from her point of view. Challenging uniformitarian theory would cause a shift too far – a paradigm shift that would be instantly rejected. Hence, the researchers shy away from saying the crust we have has persisted for a very long time, thereby cancelling the idea of Plate Tectonics. Is she right?
Obviously, this new research will eventually lead to changes in geological thinking. Not necessarily a rejection of gradual change, but enough to cause future generations to look around for something different to Plate Tectonics. That breakthrough may come if it is found that space plasma plays a role in tectonic events. On the other hand, it may prove to be fantasy and mainstream will stick like glue to mainstream consensus.