For such reasons, I try to encourage others to not think of BBT as something that claims it says anything about the creation itself. BBT came around because of what is observed today, then rewinding the clock to see what predictions would spring forward.
One of the first was that the smaller, earlier universe had to be extremely hot and dense. Ganow and Alpher calculated that only H and He, with almost nothing else, would have been formed. This predictions was one of the first supporting evidences for BBT, but no one gave it much credence since the theory predicted something astronomers already knew.
But Alpher and Hermann realized a few years later than the CMBR should exist. This was also ignored for several reasons, namely that microwave telescopes were too new to astronomy. Yet this eventually was what won almost all BBT opponents over to mainstream astronomy. [Hoyle never could let go of his own competing model.]
BBT makes, AFAIK, no predictions for events during t=0 creation moment. CERN can, amazingly, takes us to just after the first trillionth of a second. Time before this is where physics becomes more metaphysics. Inflation theory, however, is often tossed in to explain a couple of problems that arose from quantum mechanics. This theory can be seen as ad hoc since it is so hard to test.
The life of a star is a great example of entropy contributing to the death to a star. Dead stars never come back to life, unless a whole lot of fusionable elements are pour upon them.
The cyclical Universe ideas have been around for a long time but they are not part of BBT since, as I argue, BBT never gets to t=0.