Here we go again. I have seen questions almost identical to yours from people with the same religious affiliations and they all make the same mistakes. In every case they confuse the theory of the origin of the Universe with a completely different theory concerning the formation of our solar system.
The fact that these mistakes are identical show that the source is the same.
According to the big bang theory, as I understand it, the Universe expanded from a small point. This involved the simultaneous creation or appearance, whatever you like, of space and time. Since time did not exist before, asking what happened "before" has no meaning and no answer because there was no "before" in any way that makes sense to us.
There are mathematical simulations that might describe what the "cause" was including your descriptions of some things colliding but these are speculative and there is no physical evidence to support them. Therefore they are NOT part of the standard theory,
The energy density or temperature in this expanding patch of space and time was soon very high, too high for matter to exist. So at that point the Universe had a mass of zero.
By about three minutes after the absolute beginning, some of the energy had "congealed" into the sub-atomic particles that go to make up the nuclei of atoms. This actually happens all the time in high energy physics experiments and in cosmic rays striking the Earth, so it is not new to science. But the energies involved are smaller by far than those available in the early seconds of the Universe.
Calculations based on thermonuclear weapons, which are devices that work only too well, show that the average composition of this mixture should have been about 73% hydrogen nuclei, 25% helium nuclei and the remaining 2% lithium and boron nuclei.
Spectroscopic measurements of our Sun, other stars and other galaxies which have been done for well over a hundred years show that this is still the average chemical composition of the Universe (with the addition of some heavier elements whose origin is known to have been much later).. So the theory makes a prediction which can be tested and the prediction turns out to be correct. This is called "evidence".
As the Universe expanded, the energy density or temperature decreased. At some point, perhaps about 100,000 to 300,000 years later, I don't remember exactly, the temperature was low enough for atoms to form. This caused a burst of lower energy radiation to fill the Universe as electrons dropped into orbit around nuclei. As the Universe has continued to expand, the wavelength of this radiation has increased.
Predictions in the late 1940s or early 1950s said that this radiation would now be characteristic of an ideal black body with a temperature of between 2 and 3 Kelvin.
In 1964 - 65 this radiation was accidentally discovered by two physicists who were setting up an antenna to be used with communications satellites. Measurements of the characteristics of this radiation show the prediction from about 15 years before was correct. It has been measured many times since from the ground and from satellites and the agreement with the theory is exquisite. This is called "evidence".
The real reason the theory developed at all was that distant galaxies were noted to be receding from us. That was first spotted in the early 1900s and confirmed and roughly measured in the 1920s At first this was thought to be due to some sort of explosion but later work showed that it was due to an expansion of space itself. This happens to agree with Einstein's theory of relativity, which is known to be correct from other evidence. This recession of distant galaxies also is called "evidence".
Much later in the history of the Universe the first stars began to form from the hydrogen, helium, boron and lithium. There were no planets, only stars because the elements like silicon, iron, carbon oxygen etc that go to make up planets did not exist.
The big bang theory says nothing, absolutely nothing about the formation of planets, which came a very long time after the start of the Universe. It also says nothing about the appearance of life. It says nothing about the existence or non-existence of any god. By implication it means that Genesis is literally wrong but that has been known for centuries anyway.
Now what are the physical, measurable consequences of the creation of the Universe 6,000 or 100,000 years ago?
Would you care to explain the recession of distant galaxies, the cosmic microwave background, the average chemical composition of the Universe, the apparent age of some stars, the formation of the heavier chemical elements, the causes of novae, supernovae, neutron stars, black holes, the age of the Earth calculated from uranium - lead measurements, the age of rocks from potassium - argon neasurements, the fully documented ages given by ice cores, tree rings and lake deposits.
When you have demonstrated an understanding of the the big bang theory actually says and can attack the mathematics involved, then you may have some basis to dispute it. Even better, find some real physical evidence with a documented origin. "Plutonium haloes" probably don't qualify. So far you have not demonstrated any understanding or any evidence.
Good Day.