Let's see...
Uranus discovered in 1781
Neptune discovered in 1846
Pluto discovered in 1930
So either these ancient Mesopotamians had a time machine, or they independently invented the telescope thousands of years before the Dutch did in the early 17th century (1608 is the year cited for its invention, while Galileo was the first person to use a telescope for astronomical purposes in 1609). Neither of these possibilities has any credibility, and the 'ancient gods/aliens' notions certainly do not.
Democritus traveled to Egypt and Mesopotamia, when he returned to Greece he told them there were other worlds they could not see. He didn't have a telescope either.
Really? Why? Presumably, none of the other planets' moons are gods, yet for some reason our own (unmentioned) moon is clearly one of the gods. Again, why?
The Moon shows up later in the story as Kingu, Tiamat's primary defender. Anshar's moon was a god, it was sent to proclaim Marduk's supremacy before the battle.
You keep saying this, but is there even a single scrap of evidence that unambiguously suggests this, other than it vaguely resembles what you want it to?
The enuma elish and the cylinder seal are evidence, EC Krupp even tried to explain the seal by identifying it as the teapot in Sagittarius. He later recanted when challenged... So, look at the seal and read the enuma elish as a description of our early solar system...or not. But if you're intent on ignoring the evidence there's not much we can discuss.
So the rings might point to Pluto at one particular bit of the orbit?
Near perihelion
Except again with the back of the envelope, it says near perihelion, Pluto is ~30 AU from the Sun, ~8 AU above the orbital plane of all the other planets. Saturn's orbit is roughly 9-10 AU from the sun, so depending on position, to get from Saturn to Pluto is anywhere from 20-40 AU across the ecliptic, 8 AU up. tan ^-1 (8/20) = 21.8 degrees. tan^-1 (8/40) = 11.3 degrees. So the 'angle between Saturn & Pluto' is never 27 degrees, it peaks between 11 & 22 degrees each time Pluto reaches perihelion.
I did the math/graph long ago, it was ~27 degrees from Saturn to Pluto.
Why use the earth's ecliptic as the reference point, anyway, if all you want to work out the elevation of Pluto as seen from Saturn? Why wouldn't you use the Sun's equatorial plane? Or even better, Saturn's ecliptic, since that's what you'd use to measure Saturn's axial tilt. You end up with slightly different numbers, though none of them are 27.
Those were the numbers I had and they were good enough
No it doesn't. At one particular time, the distance from Saturn to the Sun might be half that of the distance from Saturn to Pluto. But at another particular time, it'll be 1:3, and at another it'll be 1:4 and 1:5 and will even get close to 1:6. Why is the 1:2 bit meaningful, and none of the others are?
The 2:1 ratio is for Pluto's aphelion/perihelion
No they don't. If you mean the longitude of their ascending nodes is the same, then they're still not.
I didn't say they were the same, just that they share ascending nodes (meaning they're close). And they do...
Mercury's & Mars' are closer together, so does that make them related too? If you subtract Mercury's aphelion distance from Mars' perihelion, you get a distance in a ratio of 1.96:1 with Mercury's aphelion. Doing the same with Pluto & Saturn only gives 1.95:1. Plus Mercury's equator points at Mars, far closer & more consistently than Saturn's points at Pluto. I can only conclude that Mars was ejected from Mercury at some point. And that the Romans knew it, and thousands of years ago were writing slashfic depicting Mars & Mercury being joined and then coming apart.
Why are you measuring Mercury's distance if Mars escaped from it? And its equatorial plane does not point at Mars, but if all these were true it may be evidence Mercury and Mars are related. Why not?
No, it isn't. Takes about 30 seconds with google to see that the idea that it is is basically down to one bloke making crap up.
But while you're making crap up, why not include the number of the seal as more evidence? 243 = 7^3 - 10^2. If the sun is god #1, mercury god #2, etc, and then the moon & the alien's home planet are gods #11 & 12, then 7 = Saturn and 10 = Pluto, so the very number of the cylinder itself is clearly another hint that they arrived at the picture on the cylinder (i.e. an accurate description of the solar system) by starting with Saturn and then removing Pluto from it.
Did you take the 30 seconds because I dont see a rebuttal.
Lava is hot, make water go boil. Also at that time, no atmosphere, water goes boil.
It covers the bits that aren't lava. When the Earth was formed it was all lava. Your lava world in the freeze line is completely madey uppy.
Can lava form under water? If a world formed at the freeze line then it was surrounded by water vapor and ice. Think of Europa, a moon with a very deep ocean of ice and water...
Not much beach side property there.
You don't know, but you still claim there were oceans before the meteorites had time to arive.
According to current theory the outer planets migrated causing asteroids to be disrupted and these brought us our water. But this happened during the LHB ~4 bya. If we had surface water at 4.4 bya then the time frame for delivering our water shrinks.
That would rather leave us to believe that Berzerker's recounting of mythology is less Babylonian and more balderdash.
Deities were often associated with planets, what is the problem? These olden gods predated creation.
No. For the third time, I want a citation that backs up your assertion that a Carbon Dioxide atmosphere would have eroded all the land.
I said tidal action would have eroded land, co2 was just another source whittling away anything popping up above the waves.
Because it ...is. Carbon Dioxide does not possess the property of being inimical to the formation of land.
I share your confusion
The picture shows how to get from a low circular orbit to a high circular orbit. You make one burn to get from the low circular orbit to a transfer orbit. See how the transfer orbit is elliptical. When you reach the second orbit, you make another burn to get into the new circular orbit. It works the same way in reverse.
So to get the Earth from a hypothetical orbit at 2.8AU, you need one burn or kick or collision or whatever to force it into an elliptical transfer orbit that will get it to the new orbit at 1.0AU. At 1.0AU, you need another kick to get it into its present orbit.
I dont agree, most or all of the planets have moved in their orbits and they didn't need kicks. to both start and end their migration.
Genesis explains the second time Earth (as per Bezerker's definition, namely dry land) was formed. I think the vulcanoes that formed small island all throughout the watery period has been dismissed as Genesis being close enough, right?
Genesis is not a story about how the primordial world formed (the enuma elish provides more information), it only deals with what happened to it later. So all the debate about what the Earth was like 4.5 bya aint relevant, if the world came to be covered by water before life and "dry land" appeared as a result of creation then we're dealing with events that happened closer to 4 bya.
Hmm, this is interesting.
It may be that our water formed in the Interstellar Medium:
http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2014/09/half-earths-water-formed-sun-was-born?rss=1
I wonder how the Enuma Elish can be reinterpreted to align with this.... Creation Science at work!
The enuma elish says the primordial waters preceded the planetary gods. The waters (salt and fresh) were mixed and planets began forming. But aint that interesting, Genesis says water preceded God too.
Well, Genesis doesn't just describe the creation of Earth, but of the universe. It was thought that the waters where where "the heavens" are now; it's not talking about water on Earth:
So, basically, everything was water.
Heaven /= universe, the heavens were preceded by a primordial "Earth" submerged in water. This was the dark deep that would later recede into oceans to reveal the dry land called "Earth".