J
J'ster!
Guest
Gooood point to be honest.
A lot of what 'some' past civilisations have said has turned out to be accurate, or almost accurate anyway. However, a lot has been disproven or just hasn't occurred when it should have.
I suppose we discount it because we think our science and technology has advanced way past what they could ever have achieved, or did achieve, in their time. So we assume we'll be correct, and feel the need to prove everything before we'll believe it from past writings, etc.
As for the murder part, I see your point, but the way we carry out trials is a bit different to that of proving face/fiction involving science, astronomy etc. Imagine if we couldn't get convictions on circumstantial evidence (even if we knew a certain person carried out the murder) - we'd never reach justice!
A lot of what 'some' past civilisations have said has turned out to be accurate, or almost accurate anyway. However, a lot has been disproven or just hasn't occurred when it should have.
I suppose we discount it because we think our science and technology has advanced way past what they could ever have achieved, or did achieve, in their time. So we assume we'll be correct, and feel the need to prove everything before we'll believe it from past writings, etc.
As for the murder part, I see your point, but the way we carry out trials is a bit different to that of proving face/fiction involving science, astronomy etc. Imagine if we couldn't get convictions on circumstantial evidence (even if we knew a certain person carried out the murder) - we'd never reach justice!
