1. Creationists don't deny the 'big bang' occurred. The issue is what caused it:
Nothing ... or God?
While you claim that this is too 'oversimplified' for you, it's either one or the other.
2. As far as the lack of supporting articles on our 'Big Bang' page
they include quotes from 'scientific organizations,' such as NASA. But I guess that's not good enough, is it?
“It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.”
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
"The ‘Big Bang’ theory claims NOTHING formed a complex, orderly, and vast universe composed of over 100 billion galaxies that are minimally estimated to equal a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion tons of matter."
That's not actually true, the big bang theory claims that all the matter in the universe was, at one point, compressed into single point.
"If matter could have miraculously been created from NOTHING, then what caused the separation of matter that created the perfectly formed stars and planets, let alone galaxies?"
Again, the big bang theory claims that all matter, energy, time and space have their starting point in the big bang singularity, not "NOTHING".
"Something being created from nothing is contrary to all known science, let alone average intelligence. The argument that evolutionists use against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is that they claim it doesn’t apply to the Big Bang theory. While there are always some who will deny scientific facts, their beliefs are philosophical in nature and should not be confused with science."
Is there a particular reason your article grossly over-simplifies/omits pertinent portions of the big bang theory? It's not that difficult to accurately describe it in layman terms; all matter was compressed into a single point at which the "normal" laws of physics break down. I mean, you're free to disagree with it, just describe it accurately.
"The first glaring problem in the following hypothetical scenario is…where did the gases come from?"
From the big bang. . .matter was ejected that gravitated and ignited into primary suns which served as the forges of elements other than helium and hydrogen. Those elements were then scattered even further when those suns supernovaed, and eventually formed large "clouds" which served as the spawning grounds of second generation stars. Agree or disagree if you like, but why pose a question as if the big bang theory doesn't have an answer?
"Describing a different scientific explanation for the creation of the universe, science student Samuel Hunt states, “There are several documented and currently taught laboratory experiments that accurately portray the events in Genesis in sequential order …in which sending a sonic signal into bubbles in a fluid causes the bubbles to collapse and they release photons, or create light.” (God ‘spoke’ everything into existence.) But since this theory is too related to creationism, it is deemed ‘unscientific’ and research for exploring it is discouraged and outright ridiculed."
It's probably ridiculed because it's ridiculous. Are we really expected to take a students thesis paper as more authoritative than the volumes and volumes of research on this subject that's done every day by actual cosmologists? Why? Just because it produces a more philosophically comfortable result for you?
And not to be rude, but your stipulation that every claim have,
"Supporting articles, research papers are needed to substantiate your argument."
is just downright pedantic and kind of surprising given the complete lack of supporting articles or research papers substantiating any part of that big bang section.