Just calling the consensus view of redshift junk science doesnt give me a lot to go on Did your preacher have any concrete criticisms of the view presented in the article I think you should keep in mind that this view was developed over decades by hundreds of people devoting their careers to it and based on a lot of very sophisticated measurements It is not easy for an outsider to even understand the state of the art much less debunk it How many years has your preacher spent studying physics and astronomy But getting back to the article even if the view of redshift presented there really is junk science we can only put things into the article that are based on reliable sources and the weight given to any point of view must be in proportion to the prominence of that point of view Can you give us a source calling the consensus view of redshift junk science or challenging it with scientific arguments Is this source reliable for the information it provides and does it represent a significant viewpoint within the scientific community or society at large These are the ground rules we have tried to follow in writing this article You are welcome to contribute and correct us where we may be wrong but be aware that you will have to follow the same rules   PS I am willing to get into the details of the science with you if you are interested but this page is is not really the right place to do that It would be better if you emailed me using this link