Not laughable, not by any means. I’m sorry that you feel that way. The position however is not based upon any evidence despite what the zen-masters at AiG, ICR, CMI insist. It is based solely upon a single interpretation of a 2,500 year old text while ignoring all other data.
Here is a nice summary by a Cosmologist:
Here’s one 2017 measurement of Dark Matter in a galaxy (very precise):
And another mapping out the web of dark matter that we knew existed theoretically:
Another nice summary: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/10/04/dark-energy-faq/
And a summary of the evidences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Evidence_of_existence
These aren’t imaginary things. There is a real physical effect that these two mysterious things have on the universe. There is no physical evidence of a 6,000 year old creation. Huge difference.
You mean of the 6 quarks and 6 leptons? There was not a ‘new particle’ in this sense as the new particle was actually a combination of already known particles (two charm quarks and one up quark). The full paper can be read here: http://press.web.cern.ch/sites/press.web.cern.ch/files/file/press/2017/07/lhcb_paper_2017.07.06.pdf
What do you mean by understand 10% of the known universe? You mean someone who is an expert in all possible fields of knowledge to where he fully understands all that we know exists? Unless you mean of our universe with dark matter, dark energy etc. In a fun word play, anyone who knows all that we currently know about dark energy (or what is ‘known’ about our universe) would automatically know more than 70% of what we know about the universe. Your question is silly though I understand where you are coming from. The YEC plan for all science is a) cast doubt upon it, b) pick at any gaps in understanding, c) claim that YEC is therefore automatically true. I’m sorry you’ve been mislead by the ‘defenders of the truth’ who have spearheaded this movement since 1961.