Mr. G.,
When a theory is found to not meet the scientific criteria on which it was formulated, then it is not up to anyone to declare it invalid. It just is. If we choose to recognize the truth of what the science shows us, then we can progress in our thought processes. If we don't choose to interpret the truth for what it is, then our thought processes stagnate. That choice of whether or not to believe the evidence is for each individual to decide for themselves.
When we move on to "Theory Of Alien Design" it must be recognized from the start that we do not possess enough information in order to formulate an all encompassing theory so we will necessarily have to confine ourselves to a thesis, which, of course, will still allow for the funny acronym "TOAD". But before we move on to discussing the evidence for such a thesis we must first discuss the "Ultimate Creationist Theory" (commonly known by it's cartoon name, Big Bang) because it interferes with the working nature of the universal model.
The Ultimate Creationist Theory states that all matter in the universe was at one time concentrated in a dense ball in space and for some unknown reason it exploded in an instant and then all that matter shot out from the central explosion and dispersed itself throughout space in every conceivable direction. Then the Ultimate Creation Theory says that all that matter slowed down for some other unknown reason and formed into planets and stars and galaxies. The Ultimate Creationist Theory further states that after the matter formed into planets and stars and galaxies it once again started moving outwards in all directions, which is referred to as the expanding universe, without ever supplying a hypothesis for this second expansion.
The Ultimate Creationist Theory was first hypothesized after Edwin Hubble observed the phenomena of redshift and misinterpreted it as empirical evidence for recession velocity. From that faulty interpretation of observation was born the cartoonish expanding universe, followed by the equally cartoonish "Big Bang" and that was followed by the polar theory of the "Big Bang", the equally outlandish "Black Hole" theory. Ever since they came up with those goofy theories, observation of spatial phenomena has been forcing them to create ever more stupid theories to try and hold those big three together. This was all begun in the days of Albert Einstein, perhaps our greatest scientist ever, and when he gave his opinion that the universe was a complimentary universe, meaning that it worked as a system, the same as a galaxy or any other system in space, his opinion was ignored by all the lesser intelligent people in favor of the opinion of a science laborer, a person much like them.
Hubble's observation of redshift, which is what sparked the Ultimate Creationist Theory and it's bastard child the "Black Hole Theory", was challenged by Astronomer Halton C. Arp, then of the Palomar Observatory, in his books, one of which is "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies", c. 1987. Arp found from his observation, for which he has photograhic evidence, that redshift is not empirical evidence for recession velocity but is instead an indication of relative motion. The "Controversies" part of his book is that when he tried to make that information known, his observation time at the observatory was reduced and he was subsequently forced to resign. The reason he was forced out was because a lot of people, institutions and companies were making a lot of money off of perpetuating the Ultimate Creationist Theory.
The Ultimate Creationist Theory says that the universe began in an instant 9, 12, or 15 billion year ago. They arrive at these figures by figuring how old the planet earth is and basically doubling that number. The actual number is not constant because they want to be able to change it whenever they learn that the earth is a little older than they previously thought. So according to their "big bang" theory the universe exploded from a dense ball in an instant and in the same amount of time that our planet has been in existence, every other planet and star and galaxy, trillions upon trillions of them, a number so far beyond counting that we'll probably never have a computer large enough to calculate the number, also completely formed into their shapes and systems. And, of course, this was supposd to have happened after the exploded universe was expanding for billions of year and then slowed down enough to form into things and then start expanding again. As if the Ultimate Creationist Theory isn't illogical enough, the timeline alone should make you consider the veracity of it's applicability.
When galaxies are gathered in clusters they are not simply expanding away from everything else, as an expanding universe would dictate, but are complimenatarily associated in a gravity field. Galaxies don't just go off crashing into other galaxies, as scientists so often speculate. They maintain their distances from each other by the interaction and connectivity of their gravity fields. This interaction and maintenance of place is vividly illustratd by the Thursday, May 10, 2001, Astronomy Picture Of The Day which you can see at:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
All nine of those galaxies are in a galaxy field which orbits around the megastar that is the hub of the galaxy field. This is vividly illustrated by the Sunday, November 21, 1999 picture that's located in the same calendar index. You can't help but notice that the megastar is far larger than the spiral galaxy that is to the right of it. All the other colored lights visible in the picture are galaxies at variant distances in the same galaxy field. In the caption of that picture you will observe that they claim the megastar is an ellipsoidal galaxy, which clearly it isn't because there is no indication of interiorly located interaction of gravity fields. They also give description of the megastar as being mostly found where galaxies are abundant, which is locationally correct because the megastars are what the galactic gravity fields revolve around.
When you study the picture of the megastar with all the galaxies in the space around it, it becomes apparent that all of what is there couldn't have formed on a timeline that is ultimately derived from determining the age of the planet we live on. The Ultimate Creationist Theory is based on faulty interpretation of observed phenomena and ignores relativity. It has let our young scientists develop their thought processes on a flawed foundation and because of it we get such other misinterpretations as a megastar at the hub of a galaxy field being an over-big ellipsoidal galaxy.
I understand fully how being told by all the top scientists that a thing is true can stop a young mind from mentally exploring subjects along empiracal line of thought. All the time that I was growing up I heard and read about the "big bang" theory and how other theories were judged by how they related to the "big bang". I didn't pursue the actual subject because almost everyone in science said it was true, and I believed them. Then, when I was thirty-five or so, Time magazine had an article in it that described what the actual theory was and when I read it I was shocked by how stupid it was. Since then whenever they proffer a big theory I take it with a grain of salt and wait to make up my mind about it until I've had time to think it through.
But also because I haven't heard or read any archeologists say that human origins post-dates dinosaur extinction, because the genetic 'origins' of the human species were already present in the mammals that co-existed with the dinosaurs and later survived the K-T impact.