The Flood- one explanation

Funny that. I know of some scientists that place Tiahunaco back well before 1000bc.Some of the docks and piers in this area are so large that hundreds of ships could dock comfortably - and nothing oceanic near these docks except an ancient coastline made of chalky fossils. Lake Titicaca, languishing miles away, is nearly 100 feet lower than the ruined docks. What tremendous geological upheaval has occurred in the last thousand years that could have tumbled these huge stones while raising the entire altiplano region 2 miles into the sky? None that anyone knows about - but 12,000 years ago might have been a different story.It is only a guess that Titicaca was the intention of the docks because no one believes that this was actually a port city on the Pacific. They can't grasp the thought so they try to find a solution that eases their minds.No I am not against plate tectonics. I just view it differently than uniformitarians.

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.

No the water level decreased. Ya see at the equator there is something a bulge. If the crust shifted that bwhich was once at the equator is no longer there. IOW if Tiahuanaco was at the equator before the shift it would have been at sea level due to the bulge. So now yes its altitude has changed- we do measure things from sea level.

Eta, I will go with the people who know better than I on this one. IOW I will take Dr. Paul Back over you. Also, as I have pointed out, it is not my idea. Others more qualified than I formed it based on the evidence. I brought it here for a discussion.

roxrkool-That is the basic premise- from what I have read.

The sea level change was said to be about 12,000 ft. That would put Tiahuanaco almost at sea level.

What is the speed of the earth at the equator? Isn't it about 1000 mph? What am I screwing up?