is there a center to the Big Bang cosmology?

Hubble gave us the concept of a 'galaxy' being like the Milky Way. (even
though Messier catalogued the Andromeda galaxy before him) Hubble then
'proved' that all galaxies are moving away from us, even though a team
of astronomers worked together with him, and the fact that Andromeda is
headed for a collision with the Milky Way disproves his main theory.
(something the Big Bang does not support) [The Hubble notion of
'everything' receding away from us (a proposed center) is a cute
concept, but unsupported by the evidence since the earth is inside of a
galaxy and all the stars inside our galaxy are by no means 'moving away
from us', and many celestial objects have been observed colliding. The
theory of an original starting point - translates into the universe also
having a center - which has never been found, and is generally dismissed
outright from the theory; despite all the counter evidence.]

Einstein gives us the cosmological constant to account for the expansion
even though he despised such a notion (his life work almost based on
trying to understand gravity) and called it his 'greatest blunder'.
Others than come along and add to the model seen already in Red Shift
data. Others then use the second law of thermodynamics which suggests
that the universe is increasing towards disorder to measure the
temperature and predict the origin of the beginning as well as to
predict the existence of a remnant signature which doesnt quite work out
because more distant objects get discovered and as per the rules of
Relativity - the 'beginning' date gets pushed back further and further.

Hoyle then comes up with the terms Big Bang meaning 'spontaneous
explosion' and/or 'spotaneous expansion' (depending on who you listen
to) and argues with all sorts of math to account for how the expansion
takes place using Einstein's theoretical cosmological constant and Red
Shift information as the backdrop. CMBR at this point had not even
entered the picture because they were talking about galaxies as
structures moving away from the earth, as if our solar system is the
center is the universe. Today CMBR is considered one of the 'main
tenants' of the theory and do you know why? Because the current math
dating back to the 60's is still in use today. This math employed
Planckes constant to predict CMBR, which has nothing to do with Hubble's
constant. As a matter of fact, the discovery of galaxies in the early
universe originally was a blow to the Big Bangers who had predicted the
wrong dates for the beginning of the socalled expansion. Since the
correlation between CMBR and the 'heat signature' of the Big Bang
occurred entirely by accident, clearly the astronomers and cosmologists
who first proposed a remnant heat signature didn't even know where to
look, thus it was obviously math pulled out of a hat. A best guess
scenario which got updated, discarded, updated, discarded, and yet
remained the 'big bang' theory ever since it got started.

Anyhow enough said, clearly the 'big bang' theory existed before Hubble
or Hoyle and discoveries merely get retrofitted into the theory rather
than the other way around. Another thing which confounds the theory is
the fact that the so-called 'hubble constant' (which is based on a very
shaky measuring stick) is speeding up. This speeding up was never
predicted to occur. In fact understanding of the big bang theory
proposed that the expansion would ultimately slow down, and stop and
then reverse into the 'big crunch'. Entropy rules here. The uniformity
seen in CMBR (COBE) is unaccounted for with large scale structural
implications in terms of massive order instead of disorder since the
CMBR (as per Big Bang theory) is considered the last gasp or entropic
final rest of the universes heat signature. This remnant heat signature
should according to the original big bang theory suffer a long lasting
but inevitable heat death. If Hubble is right, then the earth is the
center of the universe because 'everything' is receding away from the
earth according to the Big Bang theories evidence, and interpretation of
the Red Shift data. But we all know deep down inside that is patently
ridiculous right? Thus cosmologists when asked where is the center,
will tell you we don't know or there is no such thing trying hard as
they do, to escapse the inevitable logic of their own science.