It claims "some gasses had a reaction that made a gigantic bang". Gasses that had to pre-date the big bang.
Where did you get this? I have never heard this before. Current Scientific Theory admits that it does not know what existed before the Big Bang and leaves it open to pure speculation. I've never heard anyone say that it required gasses to predate it. Hell it could have been some giant energy matrix that collapsed in on itself due to fluctuations and formed matter. Or a a set of strings may have begun vibrating in harmonics and formed a field disturbance appearing as matter. Or perhaps two empty universes collided with each other and the resulting collision and the energy with it produced matter. All these are current accepted possibilities but the Big Bang says nothing about what happned before. You keep trying to strengthen your point by saying the Big Bang fails or saying what came before but It never even tried. Also I'd like to know why you feel the crunch bang theory is soooo wrong. It has been recently contested due to the fact that the expansionof the universe actually seems to be speeding up so it may turn out to be quite wrong. However, for the sake of giving me something to argue, try to make a point and not just say soemthing is wrong. Just because you claim soemthing is wrong does not help convince me of your position.
And Gluons are not theorized. They have been seen. All those wonderful particle curves shown in science centres, on close inspection reveal gluons. In addition to being right where evryone said they would be, they do what everyone said they should do. The only currently contested force carrier particle out there is the graviton which is a fairly recent addition to the bunch upon that gravity is truly a quantum force.
Indeed, though like I said, it is all inexplicable. Even if you point out that "quarks are (believed to be) the building blocks of all matter". We still don't know what light is, how it works - or why it reacts with other particles. Why is the question not answerable. "Why do quarks obey laws?"
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Currently quarks and leptons are believed to be fundamental particles. The key word here is currently. If it turns out they aren't then so what. But the point I was trying to make is that science acknowledges the complexity of matter and works very hard to understand it. Then you threw light in there for some reason. And what question are you posing exactly. Light is understood to a fairly strong degree and quarks don't really obey any laws anyone's been able to make up. Particle decays have momentum, colour charge, spin, and charge conservation but that's about it. It seems that when particles become very small they act more like waves than particles. In advanced physics this becomes easy to understand and in fact is a very predictable behavior. However, they do not obey newtonian laws at all and seem to adhere to a world of probabilities. They also exist in ten dimensions so they're actions are somewhat difficult to predict.
I am curious to know what your views on the origin of the universe and the origin of species is. You are vehemently fighting soem of mine so I would like to know what you think.