(Text as at 18/12/2010 19:58:05)
(For earlier versions of this Note, see the table at the end)
I’ve had a very brief look at Tiahuanaco (via the Wiki entry Wikipedia: Tiwanaku). A proper response would take a lot more time than I have available, but … are you serious? I’d be interested to know what Pearce’s theory is. With respect to the points raised:-
The trouble with all this is that Tiahuanaco can’t have been uplifted recently on its own – it would apply to the whole Andean region. So, do we find similar sites elsewhere? Also, it would mean saying the Tiahuanaco civilisation was 5,000+ years old (assuming this is a “universal flood” claim), rather than 1,500 years old. To shift the paradigm you need a lot of evidence, not an occasional anomaly. And you need to be sure your new paradigm doesn’t have more anomalies than the old one (and is better worked out).
I see from the wiki site that Tiahuanaco is a favourite of the “alien-origin of civilisation” lobby. Presumably their paradigm has a few bits missing as well. Rubbish, rubbish.
This sort of thing explains why Dawkins and Co. will have nothing to do with fundamentalists or other loonies. Their view is that this sort of stuff is such obvious nonsense that to comment on it at all is to dignify it beyond its worth and imply that there might be a case to answer. I’m not sure I agree with this, but I get the point. I saw this argument recently in a review of a book attacking Intelligent Design theories, along the lines of “good book, but one that oughtn’t to have been written”.
|10/11/2007 17:47:02||2253||Tiahuanaco. T1|
|Note last updated||Reference for this Topic||Parent Topic|
|18/12/2010 19:58:05||750 (Tiahuanaco. T1)||Tiahuanaco|
To access information, click on one of the links in the table above.
|© Theo Todman, June 2007 - Sept 2020.||Please address any comments on this page to email@example.com.||File output: |
Website Maintenance Dashboard
|Return to Top of this Page||Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page||Return to Theo Todman's Home Page|