The naturalistic formation of planets exceedingly difficult
by Michael J. Oard
The way some scientists talk about planet formation, one would think that the process
was easy:
‘Our solar system was built from the dust of dead stars. It’s an often-repeated
fact.’1
A proposed theory of planet formation from accreted stellar material. Remnants from
an exploded star produce the raw material. Though this material is thought to accrete
through gravitational interaction, the effect of gravity is too small to allow this
to happen in the timeframe proposed by evolution. There is also the question as
to whether the small particles would coalesce under the influence of gravity at
all.
Planet formation is just one of the many hypothetical evolutionary processes that
started with the big bang and ended with humans on Earth after many billions of
years. Since planets exist, evolutionists reason they ‘must’ have formed
from a dust cloud called a nebula. The dust must first develop from dead stars because
dust does not just develop from gas molecules. So the dust is believed to have ‘evolved’
from the explosion of a star in a supernova. Hence our solar system is believed
to be the result of a collapsed dust cloud from an exploded star. These are the
simple naturalistic deductions, assuming evolution is the only mechanism.
Many people are satisfied with this scenario and take it no further. But if an inquiring
person were to ask how the planets actually formed from the dust, he would get a
surprising answer:
‘But if you ask how this dust actually started to form planets, you might
get an embarrassed silence. Planets, it seems, grow too fast—no one
knows why the dust clumps together so quickly’1 [emphasis mine].
This, among other theoretical processes in the big bang scenario, is actually held
by faith. (The formation of stars has similar challenges as planet formation.2 The main difference is that
stars accumulate more mass from the dust cloud. Since star and planet formation
have similar problems, for the sake of simplicity, I will only discuss the naturalistic
origin of planets.) A recent article in New Scientist admits that forming
a planet naturalistically is exceedingly difficult.3
There are four stages in the supposed evolution of planets:
‘A successful nebular model must account in some detail for four important
stages in the solar system’s evolution: the formation of the nebula out of
which the planets and sun originate, the formation of the original planetary bodies,
the subsequent evolution of the planets, and the dissipation of leftover gas and
dust. Modern nebular models (there are more than one!) give tentative explanations
for these stages, but many details are lacking. No one model today is entirely satisfactory.’4
For the sake of argument, I will just assume that the dust is leftover from a supernova
explosion. This is the first stage. Then according to Laplace’s nebular hypothesis,
first presented in 1796, the process of planet formation, the second stage, begins
with the simple collapse of the dust cloud. There are three theoretical steps in
the collapse of the dust cloud and the growth of a planet: 1) gravitational contraction
of the dust into small particles, 2) accretion of particles or small aggregates
to form large aggregates, and 3) condensation by the accumulation of atoms and molecules
on the growing mass.5
But if you ask how this dust actually started to form planets, you might get an
embarrassed silence. Planets, it seems, grow too fast—no one knows why the
dust clumps together so quickly
The most difficult step is the first, gravitational contraction of dust to form
small particles. Dust grains must first accrete to form small particles, which must
continue to grow until they are at least 10 m in diameter. This size is the point
at which gravity is expected to come into its own, accreting and condensing material
at a faster and faster rate. Then supposedly, planetesimals would form that are
many kilometres across. The planetesimals are finally envisaged to collide to form
planets. There are difficult problems with these later steps, but I will focus on
the first step: how does the dust collide, stick together and grow before gravity
can assert itself? That is the big question. The tiny dust particles must hit each
other head on and stick.1 The process (which is speculative anyhow) is
too slow, especially in cold regions of space, according to astronomers. A number
of hypotheses are in vogue, but all seem to have fatal flaws.3
Steinn Sigurdsson has given up on all the proposed hypotheses because of the extreme
unlikelihood that any of them ever occurred. Since planets have obviously formed
and they must hold onto their evolutionary belief, he suggests a desperate alternative:
‘ … there could be an extra dimension of space in which gravity alone
acts and which until now has gone unnoticed. If this is so, then gravity—which
is weak over large distances—gets stronger at the tiny distances encompassed
by the extra dimension … .’6
In other words, he suggests that gravity would extend into five space dimensions
instead of three and would be very strong at very short distances, causing dust
and small particles to attract and stick together by gravitational attraction. This
would certainly make planet formation much faster and easier. But there is at least
one delicate problem with this imaginative hypothesis—the dust grains cannot
hit too hard or the incipient particle would break apart:
‘So the turbulence within the disc [flat dust cloud] can’t be too strong,
and the acceleration caused by Sigurdsson’s modified gravity can’t be
too extreme.’7
The idea is actually testable. So far, Newton’s law of gravity still holds
down to 218 μm, but experiments are underway to test it at even closer distances.7
Sigurdsson hopes that his supergravity mechanism will show up when they test gravity
at less than 80 μm. It seems to me that if he is correct, there is
still the ‘sticky’ problem of how such a small particle can grow larger
than 218 μm, above which his hypothetical mechanism would not apply.
Sigurdsson is likely correct that all hypotheses for planet formation are wild guesses.
It is even more likely that his guess is even wilder than most, as many astronomers
believe. That leaves nothing to explain the development of the planets, at least
using natural processes over long periods of time. A straightforward reading of
the evidence at hand and the state of the many hypotheses and problems is that planets
did not form naturalistically but were supernaturally created.
Related articles
Further reading
References
- Anonymous, Pulling power, New Scientist 171(2310):32,
2001. Return to text.
- Bernitt, R.,
Stellar evolution and the problem of the ‘first’ stars, Journal
of Creation 16(1):12–14, 2002. Return
to text.
- Ref. 1, pp. 32–34. Return to text.
- Zeilik, M., Astronomy—The Evolving Universe,
8th Ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 260–261, 1997.
Return to text.
- Zeilik, Ref. 4, p. 260. Return to text.
- Ref. 1, p. 33. Return to text.
- Ref. 1, p. 34. Return to text.
(Also available in
Albanian)
| Long before this site existed, many millions searched on the word “creation”. When they do that now they will get to know this site exists and read the evidence that God is Creator. Help reach millions.  | | |
|
