They have their explanation,we have ours.

Let me prefix this with the assertion that I wholeheartedly endorse the scientific method, it is the beliefs of scientists that they are the one and only true way to see reality that I reject.

The History Channel’s videos on the origination of the universe speaks of six billion years of time for the universe to reach its current condition, and of the trillion of years that it will extend into the futures under different conditions. It speaks so assertively and presents such wonderful graphics that it as thought that only the narrator has personally observed the events he describes, and that the process he describes is the only possible explanation for the mechanics of the universe, but that you too are observing the very events he and the computer generated graphics are presenting to you as know facts.

The truth is that the universe has only been observed since Galileo and Copernicus, just a few hundred years out of all theses six billion that it is asserted to have existed. What this is is only an explanation that ties known facts into a theory of how things work. For example no one has ever observed two galaxies collide, what is actually see is a lot of different galaxies in different parts of the universe million and even billions of years ago (because no information can be transmitted faster then the speed of light). Looking at the images of these stars a story is created to explane how they got that way, and what the future hold for them. They cannot know this, it cannot even be known that the observable universe, except for our sun, as it only takes light 8 minutes to travel from it to earth, still exists. It is assumed to exist, or, if you will, taken on faith.

No one observed its creation, and for sure no one has observed its destruction. Those who claim so insistently that it all just began with a “Big Bang” spontaneously are still left with no explanation of how matter can spring forth from no matter. Their purely mechanical universe needs no God, it is its own creator and sustainer, and fully explainable by the human mind.

They believe in their explanation so strongly that they will banish you as a superstitious fool if you have the audacity to hold that there is a creator God who made the universe to His speciation. And if you actually believe that He did it in six days you are certifiably insane. After all they have the fossil records and their telescopes, no god could have created this all in such a short period of time because that just not fit into their explanation of how things came to be and what they will become. They conceive of a god of being limited in his power, their mind will just not hold the concept of an all powerful God who, with His spoken Word, could bring forth creation from the void.

Okay, this is an example:  “Astronomers using ESO's Very Large Telescope have obtained what is likely the first direct observation of a forming planet still embedded in a thick disc of gas and dust. If confirmed, this discovery will greatly improve our understanding of how planets form and allow astronomers to test the current theories against an observable target.”  Science Daily, Sun, 03 Mar 2013 12:57 CST.

So they found using ESO's Very Large Telescope have obtained a direct observation of a thick disc of gas and dust.  Does that mean that this blob is going to condense into a planet?   They sure hope so, but they fail to mention how long this formation may take.  From their own theories: “If the disk is massive enough the runaway accretions begin, resulting in the rapid—100,000 to 300,000 years—formation of Moon- to Mars-sized planetary embryos. Near the star, the planetary embryos go through a stage of violent mergers, producing a few terrestrial planets. The last stage takes around 100 million to a billion years.”

So what have they proved?  That planets evolve on their own with no need of a God?  No, if anything at all they have proved that they can see there is a gas ball out there near a star.  They have no more clue how it got there that you or I, but they do have a good story.

  

"So far, planet formation has mostly been a topic tackled by computer simulations," says Sascha Quanz. "If our discovery is indeed a forming planet, then for the first time scientists will be able to study the planet formation process and the interaction of a forming planet and its natal environment empirically at a very early stage."  Yeah right, for the next 100 million to a billion years they can watch all they want (their own time frame).

Chemists from the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Hawaii, Manoa, showed that conditions in space are capable of creating complex dipeptides - linked pairs of amino acids - that are essential building blocks shared by all living things. The discovery opens the door to the possibility that these molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or possibly meteorites, catalyzing the formation of proteins (polypeptides), enzymes and even more complex molecules, such as sugars, that are necessary for life. 05 Mar 2013

"It is fascinating to consider that the most basic biochemical building blocks that led to life on Earth may well have had an extraterrestrial origin," said UC Berkeley chemist Richard Mathies, coauthor of a paper published online last week and scheduled for the March 10 print issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

"Opens the door to the possibility" who are they kidding, they only allow for two possibilities:  1-Life giving amino acids squirmed together in the primordial slime.  They give zero probability that a creator God  made it all with His spoken word.  They have no problem believing that it all just jumped into existence all by itself with a Big Bang, but "Let there be Light" just boggles their minds.

Just why do you think that they spend so much money on radio telescopes monitoring for some sign of code being transmitted?  Why is the main goal of the Mars Rover to find signs of life?  I will tell you why.  If you have saw the movie Paul about a space alien, you will remember the two geeks on the road and a the alien pull into a trailer park ran by a Fundamentalist Christian who had raised up his daughter to believe in the literal truth of the Bible.  Well when the cops arrived they snatched the girl and took her along for the ride.  She quoted scripture to Paul about creation, and Paul asked her, “What about me?”  Well that is why they spend so much money looking for life other than on earth, so they can say to Christians, “What about this?  Does this not prove that there was no creation, and evolution is the answer?”, and what you going to say?

They can have their explanation, I have mine.

Below is the video that TED's Chris Anderson censored Rupert Sheldrake, along with Graham Hancock, and removed this video and Hancock's from the TEDx YouTube channel. They dared question the Scientistic Orthodoxy, and for that they have been publicly castigated and defamed.

Presumably TED disavows any copyright claim, as they've disavowed association with the videos.

 In this video Dr. Rupert Sheldrake describes how science is being constricted by unexamined assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. These dogmas not only put arbitrary limits on the depth and scope of science, but may well be dangerous for the future of humanity.  

Go to minute 8 to skip his reiteration of the 10 dogmas that scientists hold as axiomatic.

Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. (born 28 June 1942) is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. A former Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a 
Scholar of Clare College, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize. He then studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow, before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, where he was Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology. As the Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he carried out research on the development of plants and the ageing of cells in the Department of Biochemistry at Cambridge University.