We reject the claim of Holliday et al. (2023) that they have “comprehensively refuted” the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH). Scores of peer-reviewed articles in dozens of peer-reviewed journals from hundreds of researchers, many of whom were not members of the core research team of Firestone et al. (2007), have corroborated the YDIH and replicated the key evidence dozens of times (Powell, 2022; Sweatman, 2021). Refuting a hypothesis that is so well established should require compelling new evidence and a plausible alternative process. Holiday et al. (2023) offer neither but, instead, question the peer-reviewed evidence supporting the hypothesis. Many of their arguments are faulty and were already rebutted in earlier reviews. The remaining differences in interpretation are part and parcel of science and do not lend themselves to the refutation—that is, the falsification—of an active hypothesis. Words alone cannot do that, not even the 96,000 words of Holiday et al. (2023). Only evidence can.

中文翻译：

---

驳回 Holliday 等人对 Younger Dryas 撞击假说的所谓反驳


我们拒绝 Holliday 等人（2023 年）的说法，即他们“全面驳斥”了 Younger Dryas 撞击假说 （YDIH）。数百名研究人员在数十种同行评审期刊上发表了数十篇同行评审文章，其中许多人不是 Firestone 等人（2007 年）核心研究团队的成员，证实了 YDIH 并数十次复制了关键证据（Powell，2022 年;Sweatman，2021 年）。反驳一个如此成熟的假设应该需要令人信服的新证据和合理的替代过程。Holiday 等人（2023 年）没有提供，而是质疑支持该假设的同行评审证据。他们的许多论点都是错误的，并且在早期的评论中已经被反驳了。其余的解释差异是科学的重要组成部分，并不适合反驳——即证伪——一个积极的假设。仅靠文字无法做到这一点，即使是 Holiday 等人（2023 年）的 96,000 字也做不到。只有证据才能。