You're doing exactly what "pseudoscientists" are often accused of doing - beginning with the conclusion ("The Big Bang happened") and then cherrypicking the "evidence" to suit.
TFS
Except for all the evidence that shows the universe began with a hyper inflationary event. You're doing what crackpots do on any subject: ignoring the scientific evidence and consensus and manufacturing a controversy.
TFS, there is a difference between "cherry-picking" and "being incomplete". Our knowledge which is not yet complete, suggests an inflationary period and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, may well serve as a viable theoretical model, supported by positive evidence, rather than lack of information. Sometimes science may be a theoretical science of the gaps, but the control factor is that science cannot be in conflict with natural laws.
So, any alternate scientific explanations must have positive evidence and can never be in conflict with natural law.