[neutralino]

I've been rethinking this, and I think that, in the context that the quotation (in red in the first post) was taken, I was well within reason to make such a comment. In that thread, you were talking about Lemaitre cosmology, which, whilst similar, is not the same as the current big bang theory. You said

You mean that in today's vigorously renovated and shored up big bang, there is no where to be found any trace of it's original (Lemaitre) presentation as an explosive event...

to which I have to answer yes, there is no trace of the original explosion as presented by Lemaitre. Lemaitre talks about a primeval atom which explodes and causes the bang, whereas the current big bang theory does not say that there is an explosion at any particular point in space; i.e. there cannot be an explosion of a super atom. Like I said above one could think of the big bang as an explosion that created the universe, but the problem with this is that it causes many misconceptions (mainly because "explosion" does not have the same definition that we are used to). The best thing to say is that the big bang model says that there was once a time when the universe and things in it were more dense than they are today.

Note the reasons why the big bang model has changed from that of Lemaitre's: firstly, the "super atom" big bang cannot explain the abundances of heavier atoms, since it requires the decay of a single massive atom at the time of the big bang. Secondly Lemaitre's big bang cannot explain the CMB.

Anyway, that's where I stand on the matter.