Subject: How would you prove the big-bang was not the result of a big-crunch?

I am tempted to think that some of the current theories and puzzles of astro-
physics could perhaps be sorted out if the expanding universe we can observe 
today is in fact the aftermath from a slightly imperfect big crunch.
Scientists are reluctant to talk about what may have come before what they 
consider the beginning of time. I would like an answer that goes a little way 
beyond the usual "we don't know ..." and provides some real arguments. 
Personally I have no convictions either way, but you will have to consider the 
available theories and evidence carefully in order to answer the question 
properly. 

Re: How would you prove the big-bang was not the result of a big-crunch?