Sorry, Highlander, I assumed you didn't believe in God because you mentioned God and "most of it I don't believe" in that sentence. My bad.
As for you reading a book and believing it and me with science: I'm sorry but it just isn't the same. The book you read is very unscientific and provides no substance to back up its claims. Common and basic scientific knowledge about medical instruments that measure brain activity and terminology employed to describe brain states tell us that Dr. Alexander there attempted to deceive the layman and get away with it. For starters, he's a brain surgeon, cuts parts. He is not a neuroscientist. In fact, the neuroscientist can easily refute his claims with factual data.
All one has to do is research in order to verify whether a book and its author are legit or not. Alexander is not. (Not to mention his knavish reputation prior to the book's release.)
Another thing. Whenever a team of scientists tests something and arrive at conclusions, other teams recreate their experiments for verification. Scientists also compete amongst themselves. There is no room for conspiracies or denial for the sake of denial. Science is about following evidence wherever it may lead. If you cheat, lie, or tamper with measurements you will get found out. Pseudoscience does not prevail and one of the reasons besides being false is that it is useless.
When there is consensus and when conclusions can be demonstrated via experimentation, there is no need to doubt the result.
As for dinossaurs and fossils...
You may not have seen them (my nine year old son has) but if you officially doubt their existence (or that they ever existed in living form) and evince this to the world, you run the risk of being publicly humiliated and plenty of individuals in the field of archaeology and palaeontology would personally march you to a science museum while the cameras roll just so you came face to face with tangible evidence. What would you say then? That the bones are fake, not that old, or that they do not belong to a dinosaur? Experts could easily point out that the pieces fit and that they are over 70 million years old using carbon dating. They would also happily tell you about Willard Libby and why he was awarded for his work in chemistry.
Now, imagine that you publicly state that you don't believe in fairies. Nobody go to the lengths that I previously described because everybody knows that evidence for fairies cannot be produced. Same with ghosts and unicorns. Why? Because, as far as we can tell, they don't exist. Such things are nowhere to be found. Not today, not ever (let alone fossils of them). And we are not talking about fairy-shaped or unicorn-shaped aliens as you alluded to in your post. LOL!
But I do have something to say about alien-shaped unicorns...
You may say that such things could exist. Could! Science won't take this statement away from you. But note that it is not expressing the belief that such things certainly exist. In science, the "could" statement clearly lies in the hypothetical category. It is not an established fact like evolution or gravity. Therefore, no good reason to believe that there even are unicorn-shaped aliens. Most likely, alien life is unlike anything can imagine at this point.
If you want to claim that they do exist, then the burden of proof is on you. Just as in a court of law, if you want to convince the jury that someone is guilty, you need evidence. The onus to convince the world is on you. If you don't want to convince the world, then don't pass your beliefs off as truisms or get annoyed or offended when people ask you why you hold such beliefs and you cannot provide a good reason other than: science doesn't have all the answers. If you happen to convince the world using the scientific method (the best we have with which to study reality) then you might just make a name for yourself and earn a Nobel Prize. Peter Higgs recently did with the boson that gives all other particles their mass.
But what you don't get to say is, "Science has not disproved it, therefore I believe because it could exist." - It doesn't take a genius to figure out why this position is fallacious and shoots itself in the foot.
Teaching people to reach a hybrid brain state that gives them lucid dreams and out-of-body sensations is not evidence of spiritual planes of existence, ghosts, or the hereafter. The human brain tells porkies (these are well documented). The human brain dreams, hallucinates, and concocts delusions (and its activity will indicate this, among other bodily symptoms and expressions such as miosis, mydriasis, palpitations, sweat, delirium etc.)
Therefore, the tangible evidence that is found in museums, the recorded relevant data, the photographic record, fossilology documentaries, and all the discoveries in this branch that help to establish or provide a good picture of our prehistoric past cannot be a hoax. There have been hoaxes but they were swiftly and duly discredited by professionals (often, Libby's method was enough to see through them). If those documentaries that highlight for us where we are in such studies were fabricated, they would be exposed (and plenty of people would be willing to exposed them and make the news). The hoaxers would not be able to get away with it simply because too many experts are on the ball.
It baffles me as you why you more readily believe in that which has not been demonstrated than that which has been scientifically established to exist and there is tangible proof besides consensus...
Another thing. Saying science cannot prove all that there is in the universe is a bold claim. How do you know this? Have you the slightest idea about the future and how science and technology might progress? There was a time when people laughed at the idea of man going to the moon and bringing back with him lunar rocks to be studied. There was a time, not to long ago, where the mention of Hubble's law and the existence of dark matter would be deemed a far-fetched concept. Often, what science uncovers had not even been previously imagined. Finally, I want to leave you with a quote by Charles Darwin:
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."