Here is an example of my biggest problem I have with skeptics and involves a paper just published in "Nature"....I'll start off with an excerpt;
......."We have big organisms living on land a lot further back than we thought before," said study author Gregory Retallack, a geologist and paleobotanist at the University of Oregon......
However......
.......But the study has faced intense skepticism from several experts in the field ......
If you read the article, Gregory Retallack gives a very good case for such a finding, complete with a large amount of evidence all pointing to life on land beginning much sooner than previously thought.
But the "experts" (wouldn't Retallack be an expert too?) are foaming at the mouth...going so far as to say:
.......have questioned not only the study's scientific validity, but also its acceptance into a prestigious scientific journal.......
My thought on this is: Those so-called "experts" have years of study and thier scientific reputations on the line if this turns out to be true. It could be major egg on their faces.
So naturally they deride and harumph-harumph and yell "poo-poo" to protect themselves and their careers.
Doesn't matter if the findings are true or not! (To them anyway.) I have more than a large suspicion that this happens more often in scientific academia than we would want to know----the suppression of evidence to maintain the status quo.
Check it out for yourself and make up your own mind. Here is the article: Land Life: Fossil Lichen Study Published In Nature Causes Controversy
.
.
.
