Good to hear from you, KiwiPhil! I don't intend to persuade you over more than perhaps in modifying you statement in your post #50: "I definitely believe in the Big Bang."

Ever since Sir Frederick Hoyle, who definitely did not believe in the Big Bang, was unfortunate enough to accidentally name the theory almost 60 years ago, the term has stuck in everyone’s mind. Therefore it’s a very good idea to not use the Big Bang label to represent anything else. It should for ever be reserved for the theory independently conceived by Fridman and Lemaître, based on Einsteins general theory of relativity, developed by Gamow, Alpher and others, postulating that our universe originates from a singularity – a point with no dimensions in space or time – where Edwin Hubbles observations of receding galaxies is explained by the expansion of the space-time fabric.

If you believe in a big explosion, maybe you should call it the Big Blast or something similar. After all, the most common misinterpretation of the Big Bang also deserves a name and I agree with EvilEye, yours might be the embryo to a new grand theory. In any case, you are of course most entitled to hold that view. I can think of a few things to consider, though.

You would have to explain why galaxies pick up speed the further away they are from us. That would hardly be the case if they were flying away due to an explosion inside an existing space, whereas it follows by necessity if space itself is expanding.

As I see it we would also have to accept that our Milky Way galaxy is the very center of that primordial explosion since in a “pre-existing” space there must be such a center and the vast majority of galaxies can clearly be seen to rush away from us. In the Big Bang on the other hand, every point in the universe is part of the original center and every point, unless gravitationally bound, is naturally receding from every other point.

Simon Singh has written a good overview called, eh, Big Bang!