Well considering the fact that science claims the earth formed somewhere in the range of 4.5 billion years ago...it would be difficult for any life to have started on this planet trillions of years in the past. Of course, those numbers have changed throughout known scientific history.
Good question on the fuse by the way...I'm waiting for them to show how a singular mass smaller than the moon could produce a vast amount of debris without other masses and or matter to interact with. The latest "revision" is that something along the lines of a black hole turned itself inside out and expanded rather than contract...which created our universe...but they don't know exactly what it was or what caused it to do what it did. We'll have to wait for the next "revision".
About the fuse I answered this in the previous page. I have no idea what moon you are talking about or where you picked up the inverted black hole thing.
The big bang before the nucleosynthesis started is still in the realm of wild theories. By that I mean theories that cannot be proven of disproved in the scientific sense (as opposed to the mathematical sense). A theory that explain what we already know is a good speculation, but if this theory predict something new and we are able to measure it, then the theory becomes credible as scientific "truth". The over hyped string theory showed a lot of promise by being able to explain many known things, but so far failed to produce any new prediction that was verified.
The cosmological model has a few gaping holes in it. Not all details are known, exactly like Darwin did not know about DNA when he thought about evolution - that hole was plugged much later, but the basis of the theory remained. However, the cosmological model was able not only explain all previous observations within the other standard theories of relativity and quantum fields, but also produce predictions that were measured later. The statistics of the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background were predicted as well as the existence of the background itself. There are more.
That's the part I love... 
...and people will stand on the highest mountain to shout that it is all indisputable fact...until the next theory arises. But not one of them will admit they were wrong in backing the previous theory...it's like listening to all the doomsday people, but those people are crazies and cultists. 
So answer me this: is Newton's mechanic wrong?
Technically it is wrong. We now have relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics, yet designers of planes and even spaceships still insist on using Newtonian mechanics for some reason. Scientifically it is a valid theory - it gives excellent predictions if one limits himself to the appropriate parameter space and required accuracy.
