[_ Old Earth _] Considerations about science

[Milk-Drops]

indeed...by the time their first two get into their issue they are already grown....probably already had many bros and sists

Considering your thoughts and views center around Adam and eve being created and then being the sole airs to all of man kind, how do you get around the bottleneck effect.

Considering the amount of genetic stagnation that would occur from several generations being so closely related, how does not end in horrendous deformities and mental retardation?

 

[brother Paul]

Nope, because the universe is not a living organism capable of reproduction. So evolutionary biology wouldn't explain this. However Cosmology and Astral Physics have been continuously studying the origins of the universe and its not my field.

No where in the theory of Evolution does it propose that nonliving matter evolved into living organisms. However many Chemists have found evidence that suggest that proto-cells came about from simple proteins and once proteins started resembling basic primitive cells they developed a type of homeostasis which started life.

No individual creature becomes a different type of creature. Populations and lineages however can produce different creatures. Heck its why we see the similarities between dogs, foxes, wolves, bears, weasels, and raccoons.

No those are all yours. Take full credit for it. You deserve it. What lab did you work in again?

Correct you made a whole lot of assumptions and mistakes and I corrected you. Let me know if you need anymore help.

Well MD I did not say you believed these myths, but many scientists do (and I know you know this), and the point is by your definition these cannot be science. Actually I find your answers very informing from the EB perspective, and very much in line with what most of them teach.

World famous evolutionist, and biological researcher, G. A. Kerkut, in his book, The Implications of Evolution, which is a part of “The International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology”, (Volume 4, division Zoology, Pergamon Press, 1960), writing on the theory of Organic Evolution (that life is the product of non-living materiality by random selection) concludes in his preface the following facts:

1) That “The supporting evidence still remains to be discovered.”

2) That “we can believe, in theory, that such a process has taken place, but it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

3) “The truth is, there are many discrete groups of animal and plant life, and we do not even know how they evolved, nor how they are related,”

4) and finally that “the most basic information is frequently overlooked or ignored, and opinions become repeated so often, and so loudly, that they take on the tone of laws.”

I only offer this as an example of one who believes that there are those who believe the myth of abiogenesis...

Paul

 

[Free]

Its been said "not just here" but in other circles that creationist thinking creates atheists, here is a case where the opposite is true.. Jerry Bergman was an atheist, it was creationist thinking that led him to become a believer.. If anyone here is having a problem understanding all of this take a few minutes and listen to this presentation..

tob

I would

Are you referring to Hebrews 11:3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

tob

All you have to do is go back and follow our discussion.

 

[Milk-Drops]

As you can see i haven't been ignoring anything, just stating that evolution isn't a fact, didn't you view that video that explains what science isn't telling you?

tob

*edit: that should keep you busy for a while I've got yard work ahead..

I watched about 20 minutes the last time it was posted. I recognized the video immediately. Bergman is criticizing stuff that were outside his fields of study. Contrary to popular belief, just because someone has the word Dr. in front of their name and studied a field of science, doesn't mean they fully understand all of science. Dr. Bergman was removed from his position as a professor from a college near me because he lied about having credentials in fields he doesn't. Namely psychology. He hasn't submitted any articles for peer review and claims persecution when there isn't any. He is willfully not submitting his work for peer review. His actual doctorate is in Human Biology, but that would be more for medical purposes and by no means is he an authority on the Theory of evolution and Evolutionary Biology.

The man is more a public speaker than a scientist at this point since he doesn't keep up with research or teach.

 

[brother Paul]

Dr. Kerkut carefully outlines “seven things the evolutionist must assume“, in order to consider the Darwinian evolutionary model!

He goes on to reveal the first 6 are usually either glossed over, or entirely avoided, and most Darwinian supporters work predominantly from the 7th alone. Here they are! Now remember, these admittedly are pre-conceived assumptions, and thus not “established facts”, although in most Public Schools and in the Media they have been drilled into us as if they are established facts:

Assumption #1: Non-living things did give rise to living things. (note: this has never been observed, has never been demonstrated, and all testing that has been done only negates this possibility)

Assumption #2: Even though spontaneous generation has never been observed, or even implied by the observable, and the scientific method has only refuted its possibility, it is still insisted that it had to have happened at least once, a long time ago. (again this must be “believed” void of any actual evidence other than conjecture)

Assumption #3: Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related, although we have no real evidence that they are related as Darwin would have postulated, and so far we cannot even guess at how they would be in many cases.

Assumption #4: Protozoa must have given rise to Metazoa (yet metazoa appears suddenly in the geological column fully formed)

Assumption #5: The multi-various invertebrate phyla are all interrelated

Assumption #6: The invertebrate gave rise to the vertebrate (again the geological column reveals a sudden appearance of the invertebrate fully formed and then the vertebrate fully formed with no quasi or in between examples)

Assumption #7: Within the vertebrate the fish gave rise to the amphibian, which gave rise to the reptiles, which gave rise to the birds, which of course, gave rise to mammals! (again, never observed or demonstrated, nor have there ever been any tests to show this to be the case)

*parentheses mine

Dr. Kerkut himself calls them “assumptions”! Why? Because there is no actual proof at all. Now after that ray of enlightenment, carefully note the following Kerkut quotation:

” ...these seven assumptions are not capable of experimental verification“.

Therefore if the premise that if it cannot be tested it is not science then they cannot be science....right?

Paul

 

[Milk-Drops]

Well MD I did not say you believed these myths,

Yes you do, You even thanked me for making the point so clear. People can see the post, they can read it for themselves.

but many scientists do (and I know you know this),

No, you are going to have to provide some citations.

and the point is by your definition these cannot be science.

Your straw men of larger fields of science are not science.

Actually I find your answers very informing from the EB perspective, and very much in line with what most of them teach.

Who is them?

World famous evolutionist, and biological researcher, G. A. Kerkut,

You mean Zoologist?

in his book, The Implications of Evolution, which is a part of “The International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology”, (Volume 4, division Zoology, Pergamon Press, 1960), writing on the theory of Organic Evolution (that life is the product of non-living materiality by random selection) concludes in his preface the following facts:

1) That “The supporting evidence still remains to be discovered.”

I would expect a book from 55 years ago to say that. Especially since most of the evidence supporting Abiogenesis (not evolution)in its current form was discovered in the later half the 90s and early 2000s. There is a massive time gap here. Why are you using such a dated source?

2) That “we can believe, in theory, that such a process has taken place, but it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

3) “The truth is, there are many discrete groups of animal and plant life, and we do not even know how they evolved, nor how they are related,”

Book is 55 years old. A lot of discoveries have happen since then.

4) and finally that “the most basic information is frequently overlooked or ignored, and opinions become repeated so often, and so loudly, that they take on the tone of laws.”

It would be really nice if I could read this in context, instead of a blurb. Kerkut could be talking about anything. These are just quote mines. I prefer to read more up to date information.

I only offer this as an example of one who believes that there are those who believe the myth of abiogenesis...

Paul

And I'm pointing out that you are referencing extremely outdated research.

 

[brother Paul]

Taken from the findings of The United States Court of Appeals For the Sixth Circuit, Case No. 86-3031, conclusion we see the following:

Dr. Bergman's Scholarly Performance

BGSUs charter requires that tenure is to be granted or denied based only on three
criteria, teaching research and service. Therefore, this area will be reviewed first. Dr.
Bergman's colleagues' written evaluation of his research and publications has been,
without exception, extremely positive.

Dr. Verlin Lee, Chair of the Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction, an area in which Dr. Bergman has published several articles, carefully evaluated his work and concluded :

I've known Dr. Bergman since he has been at Bowling Green State University. I visited his office numerous times for long conversations and have read many of his articles dealing with subjects of mutual interest . . . I've also observed him ...in the classroom...Dr. Bergman is one of the most prolific writers I've ever met in all of my professional career. He writes not only material relevant to his own field...but in literally dozens of journals ....Everyone of these articles are well written and show much...thought. I found Dr. Bergman to be extremely honest and open . . . extremely prepared to teach his own classes and also gives individual attention to any student who cares to visit his office (Dr. Lee's office was close to mine, thus he was able to observe this). I consider Dr. Bergman one of our finest [faculty] additions and I am sure he will add much to the field of research . . . [in summary] I have never met a person with a more varied background of interests or a man whose mind is so extremely brilliant and fertile.

(A-57)

The Chair of the Faculty Evaluation Committee, Dr. Burke, stated, "The Faculty Evaluation Committee wishes to congratulate you for outstanding professional performance...We find your contribution in the areas scholarly activity to be especially outstanding" (A-58). Provost Ferrari said Dr. Bergman's research showed "diversity, creativity and breadth " and that Dr. Bergman was "a highly prolific writer" (D-50). The administrator Dr. Bergman worked most closely with, Dr. Horton, Associate Dean of the college, stated that Dr. Bergman was one of BGSU's ...most talented and creative professors. I've known him for six years and find him to be a very personable and one of the most stimulating conversationalists that I have ever met... Dr. Bergman has an insatiable thirst for knowledge coupled with the desire to write and disseminate his scholarly efforts... he is the most prolific writer on our faculty of almost 200 members. He writes well on a variety of subjects and has an excellent publishing record in refereed and non-refereed journals. Dr. Bergman also maintains good rapport with his students. He likes to teach and does it well. In short [Dr. Bergman] is a creative, flexible person who teaches . . . and writes well . . . (A-59)

The Dean of the college, Dr. Elsass, stated that Dr. Bergman was

currently...the most prolific faculty author in the college [and] I must concur with positive endorsements received from Dr. Reed and PPPG Council ...[that he has] demonstrated and documented fulfillment of basic criteria-effective teaching, scholarly and creative productivity and service (A-36).

Dr. Girona noted that he has:

read a number of his publications and find them thoroughly researched, well thought out, and well written ... His test and measurement book was excellent.... I felt that he had achieved what few test and measurement books had been able to accomplish, namely to convey the essentials (and more so) of the field in a very readable fashion, avoiding much information... which is commonly taught but usually absolutely useless in the field. The textbook is truly an innovation, and such a radical departure from the mainline test and measurement books that it
may have trouble becoming accepted. I am certain, though, that in time this approach will become more and more common. In short, Dr. Bergman is a trail blazer (A-33).

Dr. Charlesworth stated Dr. Bergman was:

...a gifted, versatile and energetic person who has devoted his career to scholarly pursuits. His papers are well researched, thorough, scholarly, interesting and thought provoking. He carries on a vast correspondence with other scholars in this country and abroad, seeking and exchanging ideas and information. He was clearly the most productive member of the entire department (A-100).

Another one of Dr. Bergman's colleagues, Dr. Wood stated:

I have also read several of Jerry's articles that related to areas of interest to me. He is an interesting and amazingly active and wide-range writer. Although I do not always agree with every one of his interpretations, I have always found him to be happy to discuss our differences and exhibits a clear understanding of my position (A-56).

Dr. Leslie Chamberlin, chair of Dept. EDAS and one of the most prolific authors at BGSU, and with whom Dr. Bergman co-authored several articles stated

Dr. Bergman is truly a research-minded faculty member who works quite diligently at certain areas in research including those of crime and delinquency, suicide ... Jerry Bergman is a prolific writer ... a member of many professional associations ... [and] my association with [him]... has been pleasant and informative. We have written many professional articles together... my observations ...(is) that he works well with students. They ....relate to him and he
has good rapport with them. I've had many conversations with Jerry during his years at BGSU and have found him to have a humanistic attitude towards others ... (A-60-63)

Dr. Ron CotŽ stated,

Jerry impresses me as consistently polite, empathetic and sincere. Professionally he is exceptionally competent, tireless and persistent; his publications record is probably the most impressive in our college. As an academic, he is very intelligent, interesting and informed (A-74).

Dr. CotŽ added that the reasons Dr. Bergman's colleagues voted against his tenure was probably:

...varied and undeterminable...criticisms... seemed to center on irrelevant points such as appearance, philosophy. Dr. Bergman, on at least two major criteria, has achieved notable success: motivation of students and publications ... The expressed, most significant criteria of any university has always been publications. Dr. Bergman cannot be found lacking in this area. Substitute criticisms apparently have been made for personal, unprofessional reasons ... Dr.
Bergman would seem to be eminently qualified for ... tenure. Not to grant such a continuation ... seems to me extremely unjust and prejudicial [and] unprofessional and not in keeping with university criteria for continuation of employment .... personally I am very much concerned about the loss of such a colleague; his abilities are a valuable asset to this university (A-66-68).

Dr. Fyffe stated that he read many of Dr. Bergman's publications, and

...His record of professional service is known by me to be excellent. Based upon my three years service upon the College of Education's Personal Policy and Professional Growth Council, I am utterly amazed that tenure could be denied. Few faculty members ...had a record of performance which matches Jerry Bergman's. He has published in excess of 100 times...I can find no explanation for refusal of tenure. It would be difficult to find faculty at the full professor with such varied accomplishments, let alone a man at the lowest academic rank (A-69-70).

Dr. Bill Reynolds concluded that Dr. Bergman is,

...an ...above [average] teacher with a variety of publications to his credit. I have valued at least two of his publications as average and above. He is diligent in maintaining office hours and frequently consults with students. ... Dr. Bergman is a functioning faculty member whose performance seems to be above average...(A-71-72)

And the thorough UPAO report concluded:

Dr. Bergman was clearly the most productive member of the department both in the quantity and quality of his publications in both refereed and unrefereed journals. [and] ... over a dozen colleagues came forward to support Dr. Bergman with official affidavits stating that his teaching and research was clearly outstanding and that the main, if not the only, reason for his termination was his religious beliefs, publications and interests (A-26-27).

Sorry MD you were convinced but incorrect, This man’s scholarship was/is excellent and his efforts have been selectively excluded (among other people’s) unjustly. The Sixth Court of Appeals agreed the reason he was fired was for expressing his religious beliefs. It was not his credentials, teaching, or his service that were found questionable in any way. And besides I thought he beat the pants off of Barker (you should watch the whole actual debate though I am sure you will disagree)….

Paul

 

[Milk-Drops]

Dr. Kerkut carefully outlines “seven things the evolutionist must assume“, in order to consider the Darwinian evolutionary model!

Except that most of the stuff he claims we don't have, we now do because, you know, the book is 55 years old and science didn't stop. Seriously, find a more updated book.

He goes on to reveal the first 6 are usually either glossed over, or entirely avoided, and most Darwinian supporters work predominantly from the 7th alone. Here they are! Now remember, these admittedly are pre-conceived assumptions, and thus not “established facts”, although in most Public Schools and in the Media they have been drilled into us as if they are established facts:

Except he is criticizing stuff from the 1950s, not modern day.

Assumption #1

: Non-living things did give rise to living things. (note: this has never been observed, has never been demonstrated, and all testing that has been done only negates this possibility)

Except the Miller Urey Experiment that was done a year after this book's publication and the field has exploded since then. Your information is outdated.

Assumption #2

: Even though spontaneous generation has never been observed, or even implied by the observable, and the scientific method has only refuted its possibility, it is still insisted that it had to have happened at least once, a long time ago. (again this must be “believed” void of any actual evidence other than conjecture)

Spontaneous generation has nothing to do with Abiogenesis. Proteins are not the same as fully formed organisms popping into existence from no where.

Assumption #3

: Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related, although we have no real evidence that they are related as Darwin would have postulated, and so far we cannot even guess at how they would be in many cases.

Yeah its not like most of our genetic breakthroughs didn't start happening 20 to 30 years later. Also Phylogeny wasn't as established a field of study back then.

Assumption #4

: Protozoa must have given rise to Metazoa (yet metazoa appears suddenly in the geological column fully formed)

Back then they didn't know much about Metazoa, bye the way, we learned a lot about Metazoa since then, and it didn't just pop out of no where. Outdated information is outdated.

Assumption #5

: The multi-various invertebrate phyla are all interrelated

They are, the 90s was an awesome time for genetics.

Assumption #6

: The invertebrate gave rise to the vertebrate (again the geological column reveals a sudden appearance of the invertebrate fully formed and then the vertebrate fully formed with no quasi or in between examples)

Yeah, your book is seriously outdated on this.

Assumption #7

: Within the vertebrate the fish gave rise to the amphibian, which gave rise to the reptiles, which gave rise to the birds, which of course, gave rise to mammals! (again, never observed or demonstrated, nor have there ever been any tests to show this to be the case)

Yeah, this is another point where since Science didn't stop at 1960, we learned a lot about phylogeny since then. Mammals didn't come from birds but split off from reptiles, and birds came from dinosaurs. Outdated information.

Dr. Kerkut himself calls them “assumptions”! Why? Because there is no actual proof at all. Now after that ray of enlightenment, carefully note the following Kerkut quotation:

” ...these seven assumptions are not capable of experimental verification“.

Therefore if the premise that if it cannot be tested it is not science then they cannot be science....right?

Paul

Yep, thankfully a lot of actual science has been done since 1960.
so do you have anything that addresses anything from like the last 10 years?

 

[brother Paul]

Well MD I did not say you believed these myths,
Yes you do, You even thanked me for making the point so clear.

No! The point I said you made so clear was that if it cannot be tested it is not science...thats all buddy....and please I respect you too much to have you begin shrinking the box of what is acceptable until we are squeezed into a box of only those people, times, journals, and authors that agree with you....I will not play that game.

Paul

 

[Milk-Drops]

Sorry MD you were convinced but incorrect, This man’s scholarship was excellent and his efforts have been selectively excluded (among other people’s) unjustly.

No they weren't. He was let go because of ethical issues because he lied about having credentials he didn't have.
He admitted in court to not having these credentials. You are aware that employers are aloud to fire your if you lie about your credentials right?

The Sixth Court of Appeals agreed the reason he was fired was for expressing his religious beliefs. It was not his credentials, teaching, or his service that was found questionable.

Except I have the full PDF right here and it way more than your quote mine.
http://www.rae.org/pdf/BergmanTenure.pdf

And besides I thought he beat the pants off of Barker (you should watch the whole actual debate though I am sure you will disagree)….

No thanks, all it proves is he is a good public speaker. It doesn't change the fact that he misunderstand a whole lot of biology outside his expertise and then gish gallops Baker. Debates only show a person's speaking ability, not whether they are actually right. Kent Hovind was a great public speaker, but he was also a con man and lied through his teeth to audiences about his credentials and where he got his information. That is why I don't put much stock in debates.

 

[brother Paul]

: Non-living things did give rise to living things. (note: this has never been observed, has never been demonstrated, and all testing that has been done only negates this possibility)
Except the Miller Urey Experiment that was done a year after this book's publication and the field has exploded since then. Your information is outdated.

The Miller Urey experiment only proved the necessity for intervention by an outside intelligent force to make non-compatible with living things (opposite hand) amino acids that because they instantly de-natured in their artificial (not supportive of life) fake atmosphere they had to be instantly sectioned off into an cold trap device (more unnatural intervention from an outside intelligent force) to remain....dude! Bad example, try something else...

 

[Milk-Drops]

Well MD I did not say you believed these myths,
Yes you do, You even thanked me for making the point so clear.

No! The point I said you made so clear was that if it cannot be tested it is not science...thats all buddy....and please I respect you too much to have you begin shrinking the box of what is acceptable until we are squeezed into a box of only those people, times, journals, and authors that agree with you....I will not play that game.

Paul

So when are you going to source all those claims you made?

 

[Milk-Drops]

: Non-living things did give rise to living things. (note: this has never been observed, has never been demonstrated, and all testing that has been done only negates this possibility)
Except the Miller Urey Experiment that was done a year after this book's publication and the field has exploded since then. Your information is outdated.

The Miller Urey experiment only proved the necessity for intervention by an outside intelligent force to make non-compatible with living things

No, they were trying to mimic the early atmosphere of Earth they had at the time. Far from what you are claiming.

(opposite hand) amino acids that because they instantly de-natured in their artificial (not supportive of life) fake atmosphere they had to be instantly sectioned off into an cold trap device (more unnatural intervention from an outside intelligent force) to remain....dude! Bad example, try something else...

Or I could point out that the experiment wasn't meant to prove life could arise, but instead to prove that proteins could in fact arise if the conditions allowed. Also Miller and Urey were off on what the actual atmosphere was like based on our modern understanding. None of actually contradicts Evolution since evolution only deals with living organisms anyway. Then again, you are sourcing something from 55 years ago to debunk modern Biology and Chemistry, so that is a big problem for ya right there.

 

[brother Paul]

Sorry MD you were convinced but incorrect, This man’s scholarship was excellent and his efforts have been selectively excluded (among other people’s) unjustly.

No they weren't. He was let go because of ethical issues because he lied about having credentials he didn't have.
He admitted in court to not having these credentials. You are aware that employers are aloud to fire your if you lie about your credentials right?

Now I am sad for you MD…I also have the PDF in front of me…he is held in highest esteem by all his colleagues and by all but a few of his students and faked nothing. He was discriminated against like in the old days when the same thing happened to Professors who questioned the favored clovis theory....

Also no debunking of modern chem here....besides, all that Ammonia (Yuk!) is deadly to life...I appreciate that Miller and Urey never made the claims EBs and Textbooks imply but what ya gonna do....

 

[Edward]

I enjoyed the video of Dr. Bergman and learned something. The whole light didn't have time to travel to earth when created...that mystery. Scripture speaks of the Lord stretching out the heavens...that could've done it.

I know this man is not being seen as a scientist by some, but geezow, the man has two PHD's! What more could be required to give the man some credit?

(Oh, I know, to agree with you, lol. Then you'd give him validity.)

He made a very good point I remember, that scientists absolutely must be skeptical. Especially when talking theories. I think that some in attendance here should be skeptical. Open mind, open heart...question everything.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Sorry MD you were convinced but incorrect, This man’s scholarship was excellent and his efforts have been selectively excluded (among other people’s) unjustly.

No they weren't. He was let go because of ethical issues because he lied about having credentials he didn't have.
He admitted in court to not having these credentials. You are aware that employers are aloud to fire your if you lie about your credentials right?

Now I am sad for you MD

Because I actually looked it up and read the opening statements by the judge that you omitted? Did you seriously think I wasn't going to look it up?

…I also have the PDF in front of me…he is held in highest esteem by all his colleagues and by all but a few of his students and faked nothing.

Except he doesn't have any degrees in psychology and claimed to have them to get his teaching position in Bowling green. That was the issue.

He was discriminated against like in the old days when the same thing happened to Professors who questioned the favored clovis theory....

No, it was because he lied. He also tried to claim he was fired because of racism against him............ but I noticed you aren't bringing that up. He could be an amazing person, his colleges thought he was awesome, and he probably was. That still doesn't change that he doesn't have any degrees in psychology, which he lied about. You can't change this fact.

Also no debunking of modern chem here....besides, all that Ammonia (Yuk!) is deadly to life...I appreciate that Miller and Urey never made the claims EBs and Textbooks imply but what ya gonna do....

Follow modern science and not use 50+ year old commentaries to discredit modern information.

 

[brother Paul]

Your entitled to your opinion even if it is wrong! There is no proof let alone evidence that any of these assumptions are true and as for Bergman read the whole PDF....if you cannot see the guy got a raw deal you are not being objective.

 

[turnorburn]

I would

All you have to do is go back and follow our discussion.

You would what?

You said that scripture had nothing to do with the topic if i remember correctly, why did you say that?

that question i asked "are you an evolutionist, are you?

tob

 

[turnorburn]

Because I actually looked it up and read the opening statements by the judge that you omitted? Did you seriously think I wasn't going to look it up?

Except he doesn't have any degrees in psychology and claimed to have them to get his teaching position in Bowling green. That was the issue.

No, it was because he lied. He also tried to claim he was fired because of racism against him............ but I noticed you aren't bringing that up. He could be an amazing person, his colleges thought he was awesome, and he probably was. That still doesn't change that he doesn't have any degrees in psychology, which he lied about. You can't change this fact.

Follow modern science and not use 50+ year old commentaries to discredit modern information.

You talk a lot about liars Milk-Drops you must think that has an effect on your position in a debate, let me ask you a question, have you ever lied and if so why should we believe the things you say?

tob

 

[turnorburn]

Because I actually looked it up and read the opening statements by the judge that you omitted? Did you seriously think I wasn't going to look it up?

Except he doesn't have any degrees in psychology and claimed to have them to get his teaching position in Bowling green. That was the issue.

No, it was because he lied. He also tried to claim he was fired because of racism against him............ but I noticed you aren't bringing that up. He could be an amazing person, his colleges thought he was awesome, and he probably was. That still doesn't change that he doesn't have any degrees in psychology, which he lied about. You can't change this fact.

Follow modern science and not use 50+ year old commentaries to discredit modern information.

Those that have the evidence you need are being silence through various means of intimidation, their "modern" findings are being quashed out of the gate.. See Slaughter of the Dissidents

tob