Discussion about historic folks was Re: Fruitcakes

Roger Mills wrote:

> All this knowledge could not possibly have arisen
> natively............therefore..........
> (Never mind too that the pyramids date from around 2000 BCE(?), Teo.
> probably is early CE, and Angkor is 1000-1400 CE.   The things people get
> away with on TV!!!!!!!!!)
Why not? People of modern times think always noone could know more than them.
That's because they know the world always better. The world of the european
knowledge grew surely fast, but people always forget, that this knowledge has
taken nothing from other cultures like China, Indian kingdoms, Aztecs, Incas...
And only little from Egypt. You can't say: "When we began to learn the world
there was nothing we could take from them" because there were no communication
between these cultures.

All we think they were not able to do are things we can do now. Why could these
things not come from them? For all that you mentioned they needed only
mathematics and astronomy... And you use lots of rules in mathematics that are
still named after their greek inventor! That means they could know lots of
mathematics. So why not? Because Discovery Channel says they could not do this?
That their civilization was a simple one? Yes, if we see it was free of all
negative things of today. But that means not that their knowledge must be less
than ours (at least in some things)!
I would not believe everything I see on Discovery Channel, because many times
they show only meanings. They say it's historically true, but these things are
not the result of a historical research. Maybe you could take some books and
read them (and watch before from whom they come). Only an opinion....
        Ciao:
        Balazs