If planets could not form after the Big Bang, then evolution logically cannot be possible.
This is a valid statement that can be agreed on by both creationists and evolutionists. Everyone can agree that you can only have life if you have a planet. If there is no way for planets to form in the Big Bang, then life through evolution could not possibly have happened. It is a necessary condition. Creationists and evolutionists first disagree on if the Big Bang happened. Now we also disagree that even if it the Big Bang did happen, how could a planet form?
There are two separate problems here. First there is the problem of how did stars form, and then there is the problem of how did solar systems which include planets form. Since planets are part of solar systems, without the formation of stars/suns there are no planets. However we do not know how the stars formed.
The article “Formation of the first stars” published in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics begins by admitting this fact that we do not know how stars are formed. The report begins with the statement, “Understanding the formation of the first stars is one of the frontier topics in modern astrophysics and cosmology” and proceeds with “We here review the state of our knowledge, separating the well understood elements of our emerging picture from those where more work is required”. More work is required because we still cannot explain the formation of stars. This has become an even bigger problem now that we know that dark energy acts opposite to gravity and would work to prevent the formation of stars by gravity.
Many people believe in evolution because they think evolutionists have everything figured out about how things exist through evolution. This is one of a multitude of examples where this is simply not true. We can only have life if we have planets and we can only have planets if we have suns. Suns are a necessary condition for evolution but evolutionists cannot explain the details of how suns and stars are formed.
Let’s move on to planets. Even if there somehow is the formation of stars we still cannot explain how a planet forms. You will probably be surprised to learn that even evolutionists have no agreement on how planets were formed. This is something else many people think evolutionists have all figured out, but they don’t. The reason is that what seemed to make the most sense to them on how they were formed was directly contradicted by what we are now finding since we developed the technology to look at other planets and solar systems and moons. So what they thought might have happened did not happen so other explanations are now being thought up.
You cannot have life unless planets could have formed after the Big Bang. What we are considering is how after the Big Bang when all of the matter of a billion galaxies containing billions of stars each was all at one location in the distant past and then exploded across millions of light years to become organized into galaxies and stars and solar systems and planets and moons.
The leading theory is now in serious doubt because of advancements in our understanding and observations by astronomers. This theory is called CORE ACCRETION where early after a star is formed there is extra debris of gas and dust rotating around the young star. The cosmic dust particles are microscopic in size but eventually many of these have collisions and stick together. It is said that the gravity force between these dust particles is what makes them stick together. Eventually enough dust sticks together and when the object is large enough it is called a planetesimal. Then these planetesimals collide to become bigger and bigger and eventually big enough to make a planet.
Let’s think about this and see if it makes sense. The scientists who specialize in understanding the universe are astrophysicists. Even astrophysicists who are evolutionists and are convinced that evolution is true say that the core accretion model does not work. It is not that all the evolutionists agree in core accretion and that creationists disagree. This is where even the evolutionists do not agree because it does not make sense even to them. It is quite astounding that with all of our knowledge of physics that we do not know how a planet forms.
The astrophysicists that disagree with core accretion say that it is physically impossible. They say that once these planetesimals get big enough they would no longer stick together when they have collisions. Large objects hitting each other at these tremendous speeds would not stick together. They would hit and bounce just like we see objects on earth collide and bounce. Throw two rocks at each other and they do not stick together and make a bigger rock. The same theory that makes these rocks become rocks out of dust has them crashing into each other after they become rocks. They are also moving so fast that they would smash and crash each other into smithereens. These crashing, smashing rocks would be blasted into smaller rocks, the opposite of making them bigger. They would just keep smashing and crashing and could never gather together enough mass to make a ‘planet core’ for gravity to then work to make it bigger.
The theory can make small rocks out of dust in space, but when these rocks get big enough they all smash together and could never get big enough to make a planet. The gravity between the rocks would never make them bigger rocks. The forces that stick dust grains together do not work on rocks and boulders, so the planet could never form. Never! This is not just the creationists saying so, these are evolutionists telling us that this does not make sense, and we agree!
This is a major problem for the core accretion theory. There is not any way that anyone has ever thought of that would allow yard sized rocks to continue to aggregate or get bigger to form planetesimals. All of the science textbook and journal articles either understate this fact or just ignore it. Even core accretion proponents agree that this is an ‘unsolved problem’ with the theory. Core accretion opponents including evolutionists simply say this makes the whole idea absolutely impossible.
This problem all by itself is the reason many do not believe planets could form by the core accretion model. However, there are at least 8 other problems (9 total). The next 2 of these are based in physics and are theoretical problems that cannot be solved. These are discussed below in ‘Further Study’. There are another 6 problems that are all based on things that astronomers have seen in the universe which cannot be explained because they are the opposite of what should be seen if core accretion is true.
Our technology to observe other planets and solar systems in the universe has become very advanced. It is amazing how much we know about things so far away from earth. The problem with core accretion is that what we are finding when we observe other solar systems and planets is not what they expected to see. The core accretion model of planetary formation, if true, would predict things about planets that we could observe. These things are not seen and what is seen is the opposite of what should be seen.
Astrophysicists are stumped and cannot explain what is now being observed in the universe. One of these observations is that all the planets of a solar system should be in the same flat plane if they were all formed from the spinning gas and dust of a young star. But one in three planets is ‘misaligned’ and is not in the same flat plane as the other planets of a solar system. This would be a fourth problem that core accretion cannot explain. A fifth problem is that there are also some planets that are rotating in orbit the wrong way and in the opposite direction of the star and all the other planets of a solar system. This cannot be explained. A sixth problem is that we have also found planets that do not have a star at all so could not have formed from the dust and gas of a star. These are called rogue planets and there is no explanation for these planets at all. A seventh problem is that the orbits are expected to be mainly circular (based on complicated physical laws) but two out of three do not and this also cannot be explained. An eighth problem is that this theory also predicts what sizes of planets we should find and the size that should be the fewest are actually the most common. A ninth problem is that core accretion could never have massive planets form far away from the star, and these have been found and cannot be explained. These are examples of what we see in the universe that directly contradicts what the core accretion calculations tell us we should find.
When our observations contradict evolutionists theories, the theory is just plain wrong.
These problems have led many to abandon the core accretion theory and try to develop other theories. However, every theory has problems that cannot be explained and nothing is making sense, even to astrophysicists. However, even with all of the problems of the core accretion theory, it is still the leading theory, because any alternative theory is even worse. Evolutionists acknowledge that they cannot explain it now but are “certain” that someday they will.
Astronomers have developed very advanced technologies and telescopes and have now found over 500 planets. The more planets that astronomers find, the less that astrophysicists can explain what is being found. Nothing is making sense to them and what they were expecting to find is not found and what is found cannot be explained.
The article, “Three Theories of Planet Formation Busted, Expert Says” is subtitled “Explosion of strange new worlds shows theory has struck out” which was published in National Geographic reports:
“The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter”
And also in this National Geographic article concerning planetary formation theories,
“The only thing we can say for sure is that those models don’t work,”
I know you have never heard of this problem. But this is a big problem for evolutionists. If there is no way to explain how a planet is formed then evolution cannot be true. I encourage you to look into it for yourself. You will be overwhelmed to see how often evolutionist’s explanations of planet formation use the terms, “unsolved problems”, “biggest problem”, “unexplained problem” and “mystery”. They just don’t know. Creationists say it is because it didn’t happen.
The formation of suns, stars, solar systems and planets are all necessary conditions for evolution to be true. You don’t have to be an astronomer to know:
If suns and stars could not form after the Big Bang, then evolution logically cannot be possible.
and
If solar systems with planets could not form after the Big Bang, then evolution logically cannot be possible.
FURTHER STUDY
The formation of suns, stars, solar systems and planets are all necessary conditions for evolution to be true. The core accretion model of planetary formation has at least 9 problems that cannot be explained. The first of these was that yard sized rocks could not continue to aggregate or get bigger to form planetesimals because they would smash and crash at these tremendous speeds.
The next problem is that even if it does get bigger eventually the ‘planet’ gets large enough that it slows down. But it is the speed of the planet that keeps it in orbit, so when it slows down because it is getting so heavy, it no longer has enough speed to stay in orbit and would get dragged into the sun and get destroyed. For something to be orbiting it must have a specific ratio of mass and speed of the planet compared to the distance from the sun. (For the physicist readers, Fc= mv2/r). If the mass is always changing as it grows, the speed will be slowing down and then can no longer stay in orbit. These forces cannot be balanced to form orbits because the mass of the forming planet would be constantly increasing.
However the third problem is one of the biggest problems with the core accretion explanation because it would take several millions of years longer for some planets such as Neptune and Uranus to form this way than the gas disk around the young star is thought to last. This is the inevitable outcome of mathematical calculations of the core accretion model. In fact, it would take so much longer that there simply is not enough time for these planets to have formed this way. If Neptune and Uranus could not have formed by core accretion, then Earth did not either.
There are an additional 6 problems based on observations of distant planets and solar systems that directly contradicts the core accretion model. These collectively represent at least 9 nine problems with the core accretion model.
This was the state of this problem even back when we thought gravity was the main force in the universe. Gravity had always been explained as the reason we have planets because the force of gravity is what made the planets out of dust. Now the problem of explaining the existence of planets gets infinitely more difficult because the acceleration of the expansion of the universe tells us that gravity is not the main force of the universe. Dark energy is the main force and this acts opposite of gravity so now we really have no idea how a planet could form. If gravity is the main force there are at least 9 reasons that planets could not form by core accretion, and with dark energy as the main force of the universe there is an even stronger force preventing planetary formation.
It is a published fact in peer reviewed scientific journals that the formation of solar systems and planets is incompletely unexplained and unproven.