The Earth is not the center of the universe. We are only the center of the visible universe. The Universe is most likely much bigger than a sphere with a radius of 13.7 billion light years. We don't even know if we're the only universe yet.
Also, event horizon refers to black holes and not universes. 
Oh, and the chances of there not being other goldilocks zones in other star systems is extremely remote. There are other habitable planets out there and a chance for extraterrestrial organisms to exist. We may not even be the center of the Universe's biosphere let alone sitting at the physical center. The physical center of the Universe is much much bigger than Earth.
There are a lot of points in the original post that could be argued about, but regardless, I'm wondering what the point is.
The best current estimate is that there are over ten trillion solar systems in the Universe. Unless the odds against a planet being capable of supporting life is less than 1 in 50,000,000,000,000 (assuming an average of five planets per solar system), then although Earth may be rare, it's probably not unique.
The Earth is definitely in a nice zone for life, but its distance to the Sun varies by 3 million km over the course of a year, so it's not like everything has to be exact for life to exist.
What's really unique about the Earth, I'm thinking, is its exceptionally large moon.
ostrich321, your perspective is a good one. Yes "only the visible Universe", no one can know what may be beyond. Except no space, no thing, no time. The big bang theory is in deep trouble. Scientists are seeking funding from the government to research new theory's. But it is all they have so they run with it.
Thanks for the correction on the event horizon.
You said there ARE habitable planets out there? We do not know that. I do believe organisms exist in a lot of places, there is plenty of water out there.
And yes the center of the Universe is big. .0001% is a very large area.
The Universe is said to be a hypersphere it is not just round. I appreciate your input. Thanks
scotchfaster. The point is that the Universe is on a razor's edge in exactitude's. When we add up all the parameters like lambda, gravity, omega, N, Q, etc. the Universe is super finely tuned to the order of 10 to the 120th. power. Like a needle standing on its point. Any nudge in that precarious position and there will be a catastrophe.
The Universe we see is not a chance phenomenon.
Thank you for your input.
RevLarry, your point is a good one. I'm no physicist, but I've read a book or two. I'd like to suggest one to you: "Many Worlds" by Paul Davies.
In it, he suggests that our universe seems to be improbably well suited to life. The argument is that you would expect a universe that resulted from an explosion to tend towards maximum entropy - in other words, all matter tied up in supermassive black holes.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/10/moreentropy/
So, assuming that argument holds water and we live in a universe that appears improbably well suited to our existence, why is that? I see several explanations:
1) Our Universe was intentionally created. But was it with us in mind? That seems more dubious. The Earth was around for over four billion years before we appeared on the scene. You could imagine that what a Creator really had in mind was comets, and we're just the uninteresting by-product.
2) There are many (perhaps an infinity) of parallel universes, each with different physical laws and configurations. Even if a tiny fraction are improbable enough to support life, they would have to exist, and so here we are living in an improbable one because we couldn't exist in the typical ones.
3) At the moment, it doesn't appear that our Universe will end in a Big Crunch, but if it did than our Universe could simply collapse and begin again in an infinite series of Big Bangs. If that's the case, then some highly improbable universes would happen just by chance.
There's strong evidence to support parallel universes, actually. The two-slit experiment seems to show that electrons that don't exist in our Universe can actually interfere with electrons that do exist in our Universe.
scotchfaster. I have read books by Paul Davies not sure if I read that one or not. I do not believe in a big bang. That would suggest a bomb like explosion. All energy is lost in a big ka-boom. I use the word expansion. It did not cost anything to create the universe. It took 10 to the 68 joules of energy to create the Universe and 10 to the 68th. power of gravity to control the expansion.
The reason the steady-state Universe (or any version of it) will not work is because each time it rebounds it loses a small amount of energy each time untill it fails.
Maybe you might want to grab the book, In six days why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation. john ashton PhD. Master Books. 50 realms of science.
Christian scientists won't talk much about it because they do not want to offend their non-believing colleagues. I agree with that.
They believe the earth was created first, and some claim that they can now prove the book of Genesis to be the correct version of the Universe. You decide.
By the way they have dating methods that take us back to within 60 seconds of when Adam sinned. I hear you laughing..ha ha.. but it is real science. Go to reasonstobelieve.org and creationevedence.com not sure if I got the .com or .net right but if you look it up you can't miss it. 
Energy is not lost in an explosion. In a normal explosion, chemical energy is translated into kinetic energy. In an atomic explosion, matter is converted into energy, which translates into kinetic energy. As far as we know, matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another.
I believe the Solid State Universe works for that reason. You are right that perpetual motion devices are generally impossible because you can't do any work without producing waste heat through friction, so eventually you have to put energy in to keep it going. But energy/matter can't exit our universe, so nothing is really lost.
Of course, the laws of physics break down inside a singularity (such as the center of a black hole, or the moment of the theoretical bing bang). To begin with, if matter/energy can't be created, what are we all doing here?
I think "Science" is often viewed as an arrogant discipline, and religion/spirituality is viewed as humble, but I think it's the other way around. Cosmologists don't know the origin of our Universe or how it expanded or even why the rate of expansion appears to be accelerating! They don't know how much matter there is in the Universe and they don't know its eventual fate. They have observations, theories and arguments, and that's it.
I'm not laughing when I read of "Christian scientists", but I'm a little sad. The ones that you describe seem to be starting from a premise that is so categorically, demonstrably incompatible with everything that we know from looking up in the sky and digging in the ground, that I can't help but feel sorry for them.
Well don't feel sorry for them they have the faith. I'd take faith over theory any day. The worst attacks Ive received are from atheists. But thats ok I just ride it through. Ive seen arrogance on both sides, its more a matter of character than science.
Its not like they have no science at all. True science and true religion go hand and hand.
The Hubble telescope is the center of the Universe? Cool.
The Steady State Theory of the Universe and the Big Bang Theory are two separate and incompatible theories. Some of the posts read like the posters think they are both part of the same theory.
Its not like they have no science at all. True science and true religion go hand and hand.
I agree that science and religion can coexist. For example, Mendel was a monk and Copernicus was a Catholic cleric. Modern genetics and modern astrophysics were created by these two. The monastic life perhaps offered them the peace and quiet they needed to come up with their theories.
However, neither of their work was at all guided by the Bible. This is in contrast to people who call themselves scientists and try to prove, say, that a Great (planetary?) Flood occurred or that the Earth is 6,000 years old or whatever. Take away the Bible, and no one would ever try to prove these things, because there's no reason to believe them.
Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project and author of "The Language of God", is an interesting case. His position is that evolution by natural selection is an indisputable fact, but it was also God's technique for bringing us into existence. That is, God did not have a hand in our evolution except to create the process of natural evolution itself.
I'm fine with that, although I think it's arrogant to assume that we were the desired outcome of a Creator being. But Collins goes a little too far when he argues that humans have stopped evolving because we are now in God's image. There's nothing at all to support that, and again, it seems like the height of human arrogance to say that God is just like us in our current form. Termites have more biomass than humans and have been around a LOT longer, why not assume that termites are in God's image?
Rev, you seem like a nice enough guy and I'd be happy to have a beer with you, but I don't think you can convince me that religion has anything to contribute to our understanding of our material universe.
Steady State died in the 60s. Fred Hoyle the creater of it said it does not work. He abandon it. As far as the Big Bang goes there really was no bang at all. Scientists are alarmed at the problems with the BB. Dark matter could not have existed untill galaxy's were formed.
No computer model of the Universe works unless they fudge the numbers to make it happen. It ends up being a discriptive science instead of an experimental science.
The Steady State Theory of the Universe and the Big Bang Theory are two separate and incompatible theories. Some of the posts read like the posters think they are both part of the same theory.
True. What I meant was the "Oscillating Universe Theory" - the idea that there are an infinite series of Big Bang/Big Crunch events.
scotchfaster. yes you are ok with me. After all if we lose sight of humanity and stupidly argue, then we dishoner science and religion. Neither me or any scientist can go back 14 billion years and do physics.
I try to let the facts lead me and so do you, but we never have a complete analysis. For me this shows the perfect design of faith.
Of course we can see an equal distance in every direction in space, but that does not make us the center of the universe. Every man can see an equal distance in a circle, to the horizon, but that does not make him the center of the world.
There is strong evidence for the big bang, all celestial objects are moving away from each other and the presence of cosmic background radiation. This does not mean the theory is without its flaws. This is what is great about science (and lacking in religion); new evidence will either confirm current hypothesis, or new theories will have to be constructed that encorporate the new evidence. Newton's theories were largely correct, but flaws were discovered, and a new theory, Einstein's theory of relativity, was proposed and accepted because it better explained the universe, made falsifiable predictions which were later proved correct, and is without evidence against it. The same is currently true of the big bang. It made falsifiable predictions that have been proven correct (microwave background radiation) and best explains the phenomenia we see in space (all celestial bodies moving away from each other).
Scotchfaster, heres a cool Universe for you. This is a calabi-yau manifold. You don't need any bangs or crunches to make this one work. It just goes back and forth through the manifolds upper dimensions and we get another Universe. Look up calabi-yau manifolds google image. It will take you to the site. I did not read up on it.
Hey Collinsdanielp hows the weather in San Diego? Very cold here in Michigan. Your point with the circle is well taken. The circle must be beyond the Earth's horizon so that we can not know what is outside of it to represent the Universe.
In science we have three Universe's. The Universe that does exist, the Universe that can exist, and the Universe that does not exist. The mathamatics that show us what can exist does not mean it does exist.
Relativity is accurate eight numbers to the right of the decimal. Quantum physics is more accurate than that. There has never once been a failed experiment in quantum mechanics.
M theory is the overarching theory of them all. If Einsten would have never discovered relativity, M theory would have. But we still know very little how the Universe was created. They will never find unification. They thought the discovery of the gravity brane would bring us unification, it did not.
Every electronic invention we have we owe to quantum physics. But we still can not answer the simplest questions. There is no evidence that ordinary matter can turn into organic matter. It has no information.
The Universe did not create life. That is the Universe that does not exist.
Scientists tell us that the distance from the Hubble telescope to the event horizon (edge of the Universe) is 13.73 billion light years. In all directions. They also tell us the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. So the earth is in the center of the Universe.
If the radius is 13.7 billion L.Y. then the diameter is about 28 billion L.Y. and the circumference is about 84 billion L.Y. The Universe has an equator and poles. The Universe rotated 50 times sence the expansion.
The expansion began within the vicinity of Earth. The Universe is icotropic, which means there are the same amount of galaxy's all around us. Top, bottom, left, right, forward, backward, the same amount galaxy's and radiation.
The Earth is .0001% in the sweet spot or goldilocks zone of the Universe. We are in a 35 galaxy cluster which is in the goldilocks zone of a mega cluster. Our galaxy is in the goldilocks zone of the cluster we are in. Our solor system is in a goldilocks zone from the center of our galaxy's black hole that powers our galaxy 25000 light years away. The Earth is in a goldilocks zone from our Sun. The surface of the Earth is a goldilocks zone between our atmosphere and the core of the Earth. And you in front of your fireplace out in the wilderness.
We receive different kinds of radiation and gas from the stars and of super novas that are necessary for life. Not too many , not too few, just the right amount of super novas must occur and the gas's mix to proper proportions before entering the Earth's amosphere. The Earth does not manufacture these things and our only source are those stars.