It seems to me that one of the primary reasons that hydrogen is presumed to be the most abundant element, and the primary reason that suns are presumed to be iron poor is because we ASSUME that all matter formed in the Big Bang. I'd like to question that most basic of assumptions for a moment.

If we assume based on telemetetry of galaxies that all matter was once concentrated NEAR a centralized location, how could we know that the events of 0,0,0,0 were not the result of the interaction of preexisting matter. In other words rather than going with the assumption that all matter was created in this event, the event may have looked more like a galaxy collision where some matter interacts violently and some does not.

There does seem to be a bias in astronomy today that leans toward the idea that all matter was created in the events of 0,0,0,0 but what quantitative and qualitative analysis favors a bang over a slam?

Consider the following:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2992313.stm
http://www.rednova.com/news/space/23...rse/index.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17525
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/antennae/

Based on this information, how can we be sure that our universe was ever iron poor?