You hear planet formation theory talked about as if it were proven fact immediately observable. The most they have are some pictures of stars that have clouds of dust around them with planets in them. So, they have detected dust around some stars are also have planets orbiting them and they call this confirmation of planet formation theory. However, this theory has many problems including the fact that planets are not always found where they are supposed to be.
According to the Nebula Hypothesis, which is the starting point for planet formation theory, every star, and every planet formed by collapsing from a cloud of dust and gas. It does make several predictions about what we should find within star systems including our solar system. Among the predictions is that planets should always orbit in the same direction but also that they should rotate in the same direction. It also predicts we will find different types of planets such as small rocky planets and gas giants. The problem is that these do not always work as advertised, not even our solar system.
Within our solar system, we have two planets and a dwarf planet that rotate backward. That is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate in the opposite direction from the rest and according to planet formation theory, it shouldn't be the case. What makes explaining this particularly problematic is that the moons of Uranus and Pluto not only orbit in the plane of their parent’s rotation but in its direction of rotation as well. This argues against the idea of a collision tilting Uranus or Pluto over. This is the ultimate explanation for just about everything that doesn't fit their naturalistic model, that is when all else does not explain it is to throw a huge rock at it. Furthermore, Neptune’s large moon Triton orbits the planet in the opposite direction of Neptune’s rotation.
We actually have a doozy even closer to home, and we see it up in the sky regularly. It is our moon. Yes, it orbits the Earth the right way, but it is also unusually large for a moon. The current official theory is a massive collision for me more size object, never mind the little detail that it cannot produce the system we have today while still being consistent with other data. Our moon is so unusual that to illustrate the problem one evolutionist jokingly said that the best explanation for the moon was observational error.
When we first figured out how to detect planets orbiting other stars, it was discovered that a lot of stars, particularly red dwarfs, tended to have Jupiter-plus size planets orbiting way closer than they should be. They've also discovered that some planets are further out from their stars than there should be, this includes Uranus and Neptune in our solar system, because the gas out there would be too thin for them to have formed in the time available. The proposed solution to both problems is planetary migration. That is that the material around the planet over time adjusts the planet's orbit putting them in positions where they could not have formed. The problem is that this mechanism is way too flexible, capable of moving planets further away from the store or closer to the store depending upon what is needed to make a planetary system fit the model.
When all is said and done all this says is that planetary formation theory has effectively become completely unfalsifiable, because any observation that does not agree with the theory can be explained away but any number of hypothetical and usually unfalsifiable mechanisms. This means that planet formation theory can no longer be considered even remotely scientific because not only is it a poor predictor of what we will find around other stars, it has so many patches that anything that does not fit can be explained away.
Help support these articles.
References:
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/solar-system/origin-of-solar-system-and-planets/
https://pages.uoregon.edu/jimbrau/astr121/Notes/Chapter15.html
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Planetary_formation_and_migration
