Before anything I'm going to say that I did not read the thread, nor do I intend to.
>>75
The Big Bang is not "unfalsifiable" so to speak. The facts it is based on on the other are (eg.
>>76). There are some alternative theories to the 'Big Bang'. The most prominent one is probably the 'Big Bounce' talked about in string theory. In the mathematics of String Theory it is found that when space is squeezed to some level beyond the planck length it acts the same as if it's stretching (A space with three spatial dimensions 1/100 of the planck length has the exact same pysical properties as a space 100 times bigger than the planck length). Because of this we cannot know for sure weather our world is bigger than the planck length or smaller. This leads one to the obvious conclusion that before the 'Big Bang' the world was bigger than the planck length and getting smaller, causing it to expand once again after crossing this boundrary (hence the term 'Big Bounce'). This theory holds up in string theory much better than the 'Big Bang' does. Unfortunately it is still dependant on string theory which hasn't had much experimental supporting evidence (most experiments concieved to date cannot be run due to physical requirements (eg. the size of a particle accelerator required, the amount of energy required, the sensitivity of the sensors required, etc...). Either way, unless you're working in working on developing string theory there is really no reason to research it as it's not very applicable (unless you're just a lover of knowledge). To reitterate the point I was making the Big Bang is a theory that explains the observed facts reasonably well based on current well supported scientific theory. A better theory may come along at any moment.
note: I should say that in the above I'm not entirely sure if it's the planck length, or just another length near it (or even if it refers to the circumference of the dimensions of the diameter). I haven't looked at string theory in 3-4 years.