The Flood- one explanation

quote:

---

Mere assertion.

---

quote:

---

The lake would have dried up by now if it were millions of years old.

---

quote:

---

Do the docks face the lake? How do you know the lake predates the city?

---

Didn't you take a look when you were there? Or are you just asking rhetorically? Because hardly anyone seems to doubt that the docks were used for ships on Titicaca in the last millenium or two. It's such an obvious conclusion that a reasonable doubt is very difficult to raise.As far as the recession of the lake, I'd think it would be fairly easy to compare the 100-foot drop and the current rate of recession to estimates of the city's age. However, even if it's dropping only an inch per year right now, I'd bet that one good drought year could knock it down a couple of feet. (does that make me a catastrophist? ) Sadly, my googling led me only to crappy sensationalist sites like the one you quoted... they may be right but they don't quote any good data, only authorities and vague references to alternative dating methods. I've been interested in Tihuanaco for a long time for my own reasons and know a bit about it, but I'll be d@mned if I can find good facts online.

With the exception of Joe Meert's off-topic side comment, I note the total absence of participation by those of this forum that I view as the best at forwarding geological arguements.Personally, my geology is just strong enough, to find the geology arguements being put forward to be of dubious quality. I sure would like to hear from a real expert on the Andies Mountains.In general, a mess of a topic.I may be wrong,
Adminnemooseus

This page has sme information - unfortuantely some of the links are dead.
Page not found[This message has been edited by PaulK, 12-17-2003]

Heehee! I thought that said "hall of meat" when I first looked.Anyway... many thanks for the link. Good information about the city. I found the pages on other subjects very helpful too. I used to get really caught up in some of that crap before I learned to be a little more critical. I was glad to see this one, on the topic of high-interest (and fact-free) writing:Page not found....and a discussion of pie. Mmmm, pie... errr, pi, WRT "squaring the circle" in the Great Pyramid.Page not found....and so on. Thanks again.

quote:

---

Funny that. I know of some scientists that place Tiahunaco back well before 1000bc.

---

Cite their evidence, please. That's well before any sizable human civilization was established, and as I'm sure you well know, extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (Ed: PaulK's page pretty much rips that apart)BTW, just so I can have some fun here by doing the calculations: at what rate do you think these mountains were shoved up?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-17-2003]

Well, I'm no expert in Andean geology, but my gut feeling is that Lake Titicaca is not an oceanic remnant. Geologic information of that area is pretty slim and mainly concentrates on paleoclimatic studies and paleoelevation studies.In order to support my idea, I attempted to find, online, stratigraphic data for the Altiplano, specifically for what underlies Lake Titicaca. I would expect oceanic material to be somewhere near the surface or at least not too deeply covered by recent lake sediments. Nothing I read suggested such a thing. Stratigraphy in the Altiplano intermontane is dominated by lithologies shed from the bounding highlands and relatively recent magmatism. The minimal amount of salt in the area is easily sourced by underlying marine lithologies as well as abundant volcanic rocks in the area.From my own limited knowledge of that area, it seems that Lake Titicaca as well as the other dried lakes in the region are the result of wrench-faulting within the Altiplano resulting in basin formation - similar to the formation of Death Valley. That area is extremely structurally complex and there are many components for ultimate formation and uplift of the Altiplano itself, which spans approximately 60 million years. I'm not sure anyone here is THAT interested.If Tiahuanaco was indeed built when the Altiplano region was at sea level and at the time JP postulates (4,000 years???), then that means you've had approximately 3 feet of uplift per year for 4,000 years. That's quite significant. To some that might not sound like a lot, but it is. That sort of uplift would seem to highly and significantly impact drainage patterns, lake morphology, buildings, quality of life, etc., and it would definitely leave evidence in the geologic record. It does not appear to have left any such evidence as all geologic studies to date suggest, on average, millimeter scale rate of uplift (no more than about 3 mm/year).[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-17-2003]

Their evidence is the astronomically oriented rocks. You can tell they are astronomically oriented because they've been broken, scattered, and dragged away for centuries and yet some of them still point to stars if you sit in the right place and look at them. But they don't point exactly to the stars, so one calculates from precession that the city was built 12k years ago.I'm not even kidding, that was the best argument I saw in all the pages I went through.

Joe Meert is fond of creating lies about me. He has some sort of fascination with me.I have posted on this forum before. I can link to threads that prove that. Art Bell? I have heard of him but have never listened to him. Velikovsky? First I heard of him was in this thread.As for pseudoscientific ramblings just read some of Meert's stupidity.

If you say the evidence shows life is the result of a Special Creation, ie life-forms were created separately, then you are a Creationist.NosyNed:
This suggests that almost everyone before about 1900+ was a creationist. In fact, doesn't that make Darwin a creationist?John Paul:
As I have posted- ideas of evolution were formed thousands of years ago. Darwin stole most of his ideas on the topic. Darwin's grandpa was an atheist and an evolutionist.

One more time- it wasn't uplift of the land as much as it was the water level change caused by the shift.

Here's an interesting page on the geology of the region:Page not found | Andean SummitsI've seen similar things to this elsewhere. I see no reason why the lake must have continually existed since it was uplifted; on the otherhand, it seems pretty clear that the area once was a vast inland sea.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

And on PaulK's page, they point out that each person who has attempted to do this has gotten completely different results (a 10,000 year margin of error!). And, how silly it is to try such a thing, since the whole area has been quarried for building materials and otherwise destroyed for ages.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Yes, of course, you may also want to check out the two threads on this board about it under the same title.

I agree, I don't think the ocean was preserved as Lake Titicaca or anything else.

JP, I get the feeling you don't really understand what it is you are arguing. Or maybe I'm just not understanding what exactly you are trying to defend/prove.If it wasn't uplift as much as water level change, then why did you post:

quote:

---

Tiahunaco- don't just ignore it. A port/ habour city that now sits at 12,000 ft. above the sea it was once connected to. Its agricultural fields now at an altitude where barely anything will grow never mind support a civilization.

---

Obviously you have a problem with the elevation of Tiahuanaco implying that it wasn't that high when it was built, but rather at sea level where it acted as a *real* port city.Now you seem to be implying that it was the water level that rose, not the land.What exactly are you postulating here?