But just wanted to confirm if there was a possiblity to opppose Big Bang on the grounds that Science gives ample flexibility to consider even the most 'stupid'(unlikely) of all possibilities(of course the possiblities should be based on the ability to pass the trials ie observations)if somebody in my neighbourhood stands up and says that I have got a better theory that explains all the observed facts (red shift, CBR etc.)

The only question that remains is:

Would it then be Science or nonscience or some sort of pseudoscience (using apperance of science to violate science itself)?

I just wanted to know where the dividing line is present between the three things through the understanding of Big Bang.

Yasir.