Theo Todman's Web Page - Notes Pages


(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:-

  1. The ruins have been put back together by a bunch of amateurs, so who knows what they signify. But, …
  2. I don’t know, but Tiahuanaco doesn’t look to be too far from Lake Titicaca. Maybe it was on the shore 1,500 years ago or whenever the culture hails from.
  3. So’s the Dead Sea. Being filled with salt water doesn’t imply sea water. Does Lake Titicaca have major rivers running out of it?
  4. So what? Everyone agrees that the Andes have been uplifted from sea level as a result of the impact of two plates. The strata were probably once sea-bed. Only it’s taken a long time and is still on-going.
  5. Same issue as Stone Henge. Glacier ice can carry the blocks. Or Tiahuanaco was on the shore of lake Titicaca, or …. something else.
  6. So what (even if this is all correct)?
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”.

Printable Versions:

Previous Version of this Note:

Date Length Title
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

Summary of Note Links to this Page


To access information, click on one of the links in the table above.

Text Colour Conventions

  1. Black: Printable Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2020
  2. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2020

© Theo Todman, June 2007 - Sept 2020.Please address any comments on this page to output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this PageReturn to Theo Todman's Philosophy PageReturn to Theo Todman's Home Page