Urfa Man, Sanliurfa Museum Previous blog posts reviewed several sections of Holliday et al. (2023), focussing on the primary impact evidence . It turns out their "comprehensive refutation" has no refutation arguments at all. Instead, it seems Holliday et al. are intent on making as many 'gotcha!' claims as possible. That is, they actively seek as many potential inconsistencies among a wide range of YDIH publications, some not even scientific papers, as they can. This is poor science. Good scientists, instead, focus on peer-reviewed research papers and whenever they encounter a potential conflict between sources first ask themselves if they have misunderstood. For example, it is often the case that a potential conflict is simply a misinterpretation. Or perhaps there have been updates since the first publication, in line with the scientific method. But, if the conflict persists and cannot be easily explained, a good scientist seeks to resolve the apparent conflict b