I have, and to go into further discussion would also be completely off topic as it would require way more than a single post. However, since you do not care for generalizations of off topic discussion perhaps you could start your own thread, since the formulas are not what is important here, but what is, the big bang theory was replaced by a more plausible theory recently, gas cloud I think was the term used for it.
Are you referring to nebular cloud theory, which deals with the formation of plants and stars within the universe?
As for most scientists agreeing with the big bang theory, no, they haven't,
TBT remains the dominant and most widely acceted theory, in no small part because no other theory has yet been put forth that explains so much so well
'why' is not a valid question. There is no 'reason' that the universe is the way it is, other than the interplay of the laws of the universe acting on energy/matterwe cannot learn why an atom exists just by figuring out how it got there through any mathematical model, it's not something science can do, because the "why" is not measurable, it's religious.
"Why?" is what makes us different from the animals. "Why?" gave us the scientific method and religion. "Why?" is the parent of both, making them related.
Both are useful tools for us to use, but both, like any tool, can be used in pursuits that can only be described as "a fucked-up psycho-bitch pain in humanity's ass".
This is why we need law; a study based more in "what" than "why"... if we can come to a consensus on what behaviors are acceptable (preferably based in popular opinion that is dynamic and able to change with the times) we will all be able to pursue our own tangents of why and get each generation that much closer to touching the stars.
Step one is accepting that everyone else has the right to be wrong. This is where religion has historically fucked up.
-Joe