If secular science publications and scientists continue to ignore evidences that?

Question

clearly challenge their theories, is that the pursuit of true science?

Here are a few legitimate science questions that are left unanswered both in scientific journals and left out of public school text books. My point is that while all science is legitimate, is it really as well rounded as we would like to believe? I do not mean for each of these questions (below) to be answered, I am only looking for opinions on the ABOVE question relating to them as examples. I hope that's clear :)
Why are there fossilized trees that seem to be growing up through many thousands of years of geologic sedimentary rock in France?
Why are there fossilized clams on TOP of Mt. Everest?
Why is there a fossilized baleen whale standing on it's end in many many layers of sediment (did it die and then stand there for millions of years while the sediment settled around it and fossilized it?)
Why has there been fresh T-rex blood and sinew found at a dig only a couple of years ago, but not widely acknowledged as a HUGE question mark for the 60 million year theory?

Hi Spacebunny
Of the above discoveries, only the T-rex evidence is new.
The trees in france have been exposed on the hillside for eons... the whale was discovered in the early 20th century (I think off the coast of california). It's been well known for decades that mount everest is a fossil bed of marine animals.

I thank you for your insight. I just thought I'd post a couple of thoughtful questions tonight....

allota...
your additional details only serve to prove my point. You have accepted without question the information that has been given to you via your textbook.
I would counter that to be truly informed about the subject, perhaps continued study and pursuit of other questions which are arising is in order.... of course mt. everest was flat at one time. What about other mountain ranges? what about grand canyon? If they were flat(ter) then wouldn't that validate an argument to entertain at least a THEORY of a global flood?
sediment being deposited around trees over millions or even thousands of years simply doesn't make sense. They would have rotted or disintigrated long before fossilization set in.
the T-rex bone was found in South Dakota in a canyon - not frozen.

I find this all fascinating.
:)

Answer 1

Ignoring evidence is not the pursuit of true science.

Answer 2

Such evidence would have to be subjected to confirming experiments and peer review and then constant refinement after it was proved viable as a theory. Of course, all this posits that said evidence must be gathered in support of or in refutation of, a hypothesis that has already stood the test of evidence in order to become a theory. You haven't even told us what example you have in mind, but certainly any evidence that has a chance of toppling a theory or refining a theory must be tested. Are you saying that viable evidence has NOT been tested? And what theory are you referring to? How does said evidence challenge the theory you have in mind? All these questions and more...yet to be answered!

EDIT: Thanks for additional info: I cannot answer these questions; however, if some of this has recently been discovered, chances are that the scientific journals are in the process of evaluating the gathered evidence even now. I would ask a geologist/zoological archaeologist about the clams and whale fossils--I do not know the explanations for such things. Certainly there are clues in the surrounding sediment down to the level of chemical soil composition and crystalline structure of the sedimentary minerals, which would tell tales of how quickly the layers formed or if there was any natural preservational conditions (in the case of the T-Rex). Cheers!

Answer 3

They ignore religious dogma, but they don't ignore legitimate scientific evidence. If you are reading about this so-called evidence in a religious publication, then they most likely aren't telling you whether or not it has been investigated by scientists and then discarded. Unlike what religions will tell you, scientists have no reason to ignore legitimate scientific evidence. It does NOT benefit them to do that. Scientists are simply looking for the truth, and if there's something worth investigating, then they're going to investigate it. They have no "agenda", like religions do. That the theory of evolution is some "mass conspiracy" by tens of thousands of scientists is a ridiculous notion started by fundamentalists who want the Bible, and ONLY the Bible, to be considered the truth about how life began.

Answer 4

I would need specific cases to best answer your question.


Some science is rife with political or social bias (see South Korea's earlier claims in stem cell research), but it is much less so than religion, because the first is real, proven, and always subject to refinement.

Answer 5

No it is not. Good question!
If you've got the Aswer to something you shouldn't be afraid of anything else. Right?
Right!
Left?
Left!
Right!
Left!
Right!
Left!
tap tap tap.

What?

you got off the track.

And thats exactly what they want to do to us.
Get us off-tract.
Some will even go so far as to re-write History.
Or try to!
You can fool all of the People some of the time.
Some of the People all of the time.

They know things they ain't telling!

Ditto................

Answer 6

Hi sweetie.. to what evidences do you refer? Can you cite some examples for us, so we'll know more about how to answer this? Thanks!
K

Answer 7

Please... Cites (re your implication, given "R&S"). They are constantly challenged; that's the whole point of science. But there is *no* evidence pointing to the supernatural at all. And there never has been.

Answer 8

yes .. the standard practice is to throw out all results that dont fit ur theorys' model ...

Answer 9

No, thats called data farming. They raise only what they want.

Answer 10

They would not know the truth if it kicked them in the head. They already have a theory that they like, and they will ignore all that goes against it, and that is a FACT.