Evidence For "God"

[Japher]

I think another interesting explination from Slithcincnsi is the whole migration issue to S. America. Interesting that elephants and african american looking carvings exist.

Ur? Where the hell is it? Iraq, Iran? Where is Abram?

I think... therefore I beleive

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Seriously, you never heard about the DNA researchers finding the mitochondrial "Eve"? Google it, learn something about what we're debating.

http://artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/

They have it at 200,000 years ago which fits well with Sitchin's estimate given an undetermined lag between the lower gods' rebellion and our eventual emergence. I see this as amazing, you'll probably

Well I did laugh, because that's exactly what I wanted you to say. (Perhaps you can understand how I wasn't sure what you were talking about now, as you've "corrected" yourself about how long ago it was. 250k is stretching it quite a ways, especially when 200k is actually towards the higher end of the estimate, 140k being towards the lower end.)

Mitochondrial "Eve" is the most recent common ancestor of those living today, through the matriarchal line. That means that everyone living today can trace their ancestry back to "mEve". It doesn't mean that "mEve" was the first woman, or even the only woman living at the time. It just means that over time her matriarchal line has become the matriarchal line in all lines.

Just to illustrate the sillyness of using mtMRCA as proof of genetic mutation 250k years ago by aliens, the MRCA on the male side is from much later in the timeline. "mAdam" lived around 80k years ago.

And the MRCA (traced back through both parents) could be as recent as 3k years ago.

MRCA really doesn't mean anything in the context you're trying to present it. You see a date and think it corresponds to some preconceived notion, but that's because you don't understand what it means.

I did post the evidence, you just didn't know anything about it.

I know far more about it than you do. I just needed you to specifically state what the hell it was you were talking about because there is more than one type of MRCA out there.

(I find it hillarious that you're bringing up MRCA after all your "stay on topic of solar system formation" ranting though... thanks.)

So when you look in a textbook for a depiction of our solar system, you need the author to tell you its a depiction of our solar system? And you need it to scale?

If I look at a textbook about the solar system, I expect to find accurate information about the solar system. I'm not going there for pictures.

When I look at that glyph, I don't see accurate information about the solar system... so why should I assume it is a more accurate description of the solar system than our current knowledge today? More importantly, if it doesn't resemble the solar system much at all, why should I assume the dots are all planets (except the moon... cause the moon is "special") and none of them are instead stars? Why leap to the conclusion that they must have known about planets that we have no reason to suspect they could know about?

Of course its out of scale, look at how much room the artist had to work with. You answered your own criticism, some of the planets wouldn't even appear if it was to scale.

Maybe they are there and you just can't see them.

The artist wanted them to appear.

Obviously the artist wanted the shapes to appear. The question is what did the artist mean for them to represent.

I suggested it was possible for life to exist on that planet but I was skeptical. If I'm without a brain for saying that then you must believe life cant exist in that situation.

By saying "how are you posting here without your brain" I was mocking you for asking why I'd at Sitchin.

Now I'm mocking you for still not being able to figure that out even though I keep telling you exactly what it was I was at.

Oh... and I'm also mocking you for claiming that I said "how are you posting here without your brain" in reply to your defense of life on the hypothetical planet, when the quote you are referencing was in the same post as when I introduced the reference to that planet into this thread.

You're using Sitchin's more questionable claims to attack his claims about the Enuma Elish and the creation stories.

I was laughing at Sitchin. You asked why and called me spineless for not wanting to go into it with you. So I told you why I was laughing.

Now you're crying that I told you. Priceless.

Now I haven't been debating whats been said? Wtf!

You keep quoting me and then trying to debate something I haven't said. So... yep.

I see, you meant "they are myths" in a good way?

Nothing wrong with myths. They can be quite interesting, and helpful in understanding ancient cultures.

Huh? They did make the claims in their "myths", sure sounds like you dont consider myths to be worthy of consideration.

They're worth consideration, but have to be taken in context of how they are offered. Working from our understanding of the solar system and then interpreting their myths to try to fit them to our modern understanding is not proper science.

I didn't ask what you found funny about Sitchin, I asked what was funny about Sitchin wrt the subject matter.

Nope. You said:

"Aeson, do you have something to refute his theory about our solar system?"

If you meant "creation of our solar system" you should have been more specific. Because what happens here on Earth between a race of ETs from another planet that's supposedly out there in our solar system sure as hell is something about our solar system.

I said it in the title of thread, you aint too bright are ya?

I said, "You haven't explained how the ancient cultures you claim had this knowledge achieved that knowledge."

And your reply to that was ETs, and now you're claiming that was in the title of the thread. (Evidence For "God")

You haven't even begun to explain how the ETs got here, why they came, where they went, and give evidence for all of that.

But where is this fundamentally flawed logic?

In your methodology. You take facts and try to fit them to your theory, forgetting what the facts mean or changing interpretations and perspectives to try to make them fit with your preconceived notions. That isn't science.

I've been trying to get you to debate the scientific evidence and all you can do is and throw around insults.

Stop *****ing about insults, it's your own fault you're in this mess. If you wanted a friendly discussion you shouldn't have kicked it off by calling me spineless.

Oh yeah, you didn't even know about DNA research into human origins.

I asked you to expound upon what research it was you were refering to. Because you know (well, you don't)... there's more to MRCA DNA research than just mtMRCA.

You clearly don't even know what the DNA research you're relying on means, yet are trying to make fun of me for not automatically knowing what you were talking about with your incorrect reference to it.

Do you need a link to NASA so you can see what the solar system looks like?

Your analogy is flawed. You were referencing something specific within a field, without specifying what. It's like if you were asking for discussion about a planet, but not telling us which one it was. I asked for clarification, to which you proceeded to throw a hissy fit.

I can speculate though, maybe the gold is naturally occurring and they need to supplement it to prevent drastic changes in the ebb and flow. Or maybe the gold enhances an otherwise deteriorating situation, like us intentionally pumping stuff into the atmosphere to help the ozone protect us. Maybe Sitchin made a mistake in his interpretation. Who knows?

That's my point. It's all just unsupported speculation. Invisible Unicorn stuff.

I didn't ask you to change the subject...

You made arguments in regards to those subjects. I'm not just going to drop them because you claim you want to stay on topic. If you want to stay on one topic, don't keep arguing on the topics you don't wish to discuss.

[Aeson]

As for the seal itself... (since I ran into this while checking my references for that last post)

The Sumerians depict the Sun (or sun god Shamash) as a disk with lines inside it. They depict important stars as having points (6-8). Here's an example of the Star, Moon, and Sun symbols:



They also knew of "wandering stars", planets. Those they have names for are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. Interestingly enough, they didn't even think of the earth as a "wandering star".

-----------------------

The explanations I've run across so far are that it may be a depiction of a certain star associated with a god of harvest, or Venus passing through the Pleiades, or the divine counsel of 12 Gods with Anu as the central figure.

It is a star though, and not the Sun.

[Straybow]

Wrong! It's the 12 Lords of Kobol, surrounding the 13th who lead his people to Earth ten thousand years ago.

[Berzerker]

Well I did laugh, because that's exactly what I wanted you to say. (Perhaps you can understand how I wasn't sure what you were talking about now, as you've "corrected" yourself about how long ago it was. 250k is stretching it quite a ways, especially when 200k is actually towards the higher end of the estimate, 140k being towards the lower end.)

Not quite, I said the myth claims a rebellion took place and humans were eventually bred and later obtained the ability to procreate. The 250,000 is just the range all this began happening according to the myth.

Mitochondrial "Eve" is the most recent common ancestor of those living today, through the matriarchal line. That means that everyone living today can trace their ancestry back to "mEve". It doesn't mean that "mEve" was the first woman, or even the only woman living at the time. It just means that over time her matriarchal line has become the matriarchal line in all lines.

And the myth doesn't say there was an "Eve", even the Bible says there were people created before Eve. Accusing me of not knowing about the DNA based on words you put in my mouth. Gee, thats called a strawman. You're consistent, I'll give you that. I've already said she is a common ancestor, not that she was the first or only woman.

Just to illustrate the sillyness of using mtMRCA as proof of genetic mutation 250k years ago by aliens, the MRCA on the male side is from much later in the timeline. "mAdam" lived around 80k years ago.

Actually, the evidence for the mutation is the dramatic change in human morphology. I didn't say the DNA was evidence of any mutation. And according to the myths, we were given the ability to procreate after human "hybrids" were made for mining. I believe I already said there was a lag time between these first peoples and anatomically modern humans.

The myth also says female "goddesses" were used to produce human babies but they grew tired and eventually humans with the ability to procreate were produced. We'll see if the male lineage stands up, but it doesn't refute the myth - it supports it. Our common mother goes back further than our common father. At some point males could produce children ala the Garden of Eden.

And the MRCA (traced back through both parents) could be as recent as 3k years ago.

Even if true, that has nothing to do with people living before the Flood.

MRCA really doesn't mean anything in the context you're trying to present it. You see a date and think it corresponds to some preconceived notion, but that's because you don't understand what it means.

It means we have a common ancestor that lived within the last 1/4 million years and the Sumerians knew it.

I know far more about it than you do. I just needed you to specifically state what the hell it was you were talking about because there is more than one type of MRCA out there.

(I find it hillarious that you're bringing up MRCA after all your "stay on topic of solar system formation" ranting though... thanks.)

I brought up DNA as part of my evidence for God, thats what the thread is about. Since you wont talk about the solar system we're now talking about DNA. Thats my fault too?

If I look at a textbook about the solar system, I expect to find accurate information about the solar system. I'm not going there for pictures.

Stop dodging, depictions in that textbook are not to scale and you damn well know it. You cant even admit that? No spine, and the limbs are disappearing now... Noooo...

When I look at that glyph, I don't see accurate information about the solar system...

What do you see? Lets see your powers of observation. Describe it

why should I assume it is a more accurate description of the solar system than our current knowledge today?

Who said it was a more accurate depiction? Its the size of a postage stamp.

More importantly, if it doesn't resemble the solar system much at all, why should I assume the dots are all planets (except the moon... cause the moon is "special") and none of them are instead stars? Why leap to the conclusion that they must have known about planets that we have no reason to suspect they could know about?

The Moon is special because its not only part of the story, its staring us in the face. Lets see, 5 small globes on one side of the star, 5 large globes on the other. What does the solar system look like? Five small inner bodies separated from 4 large bodies - the 12th planet makes for the 5th large globe in the depiction. Oh yeah, that small object between Saturn and Uranus is Pluto. According to the myth it was an emissary sent out by Saturn to announce the arrival of Marduk. Saturn's rings point to Pluto's perihelion and they both ascend the ecliptic very close to each other.

Obviously the artist wanted the shapes to appear. The question is what did the artist mean for them to represent.

Well, they're either planets surrounding a star, or they're pimples on the artist's ass. Wtf do you think they are?

By saying "how are you posting here without your brain" I was mocking you for asking why I'd at Sitchin.

Oh BS, we were talking about the potential of life on a planet under those extremes.

Now I'm mocking you for still not being able to figure that out even though I keep telling you exactly what it was I was at.

Oh, I'm well aware you ran off to find something else from Sitchin to criticize. But you ran away from the subject...

Oh... and I'm also mocking you for claiming that I said "how are you posting here without your brain" in reply to your defense of life on the hypothetical planet, when the quote you are referencing was in the same post as when I introduced the reference to that planet into this thread.

The Pulitzer you wont win So what if you mentioned the 12th planet? You challenged the notion that life could evolve on such a planet, here is what you said:

Lifeforms capable of living on earth (genetically compatible with us to some extent since we were genetically engineered from them and homo erectus) who are living on a planet which at the outer reaches of it's orbit reaches ~440 astronomical units from the sun. That's one hell of a winter that lasts the better part of 3k years.

So they travel to earth to genetically engineer slaves (us) to mine gold for them so they can shield their atmosphere, because you know they need their atmosphere... and it's a really good thing they didn't need it until after they somehow developed interstellar transport and genetic engineering!

Of course they're mindless dolts since they think it's easier to come here, genetically engineer humans, and mine enough gold to shield their atmosphere, rather than to just come here and live somewhere hospitable.

The only interesting question this raises is how are you posting here without your brain Berzerker?

After all that you announced life was possible in such a situation. Well, whoopedy-de-do... Make up your ****ing mind instead of insulting me for saying something you actually agree with.

I was laughing at Sitchin. You asked why and called me spineless for not wanting to go into it with you. So I told you why I was laughing.

Now you're crying that I told you. Priceless.

I called you spineless for avoiding the subject and then bringing in some other theory he has, nothing you've done since has convinced me otherwise.

Nope. You said:

"Aeson, do you have something to refute his theory about our solar system?"

If you meant "creation of our solar system" you should have been more specific. Because what happens here on Earth between a race of ETs from another planet that's supposedly out there in our solar system sure as hell is something about our solar system.

Ah, you need it spelled out... I didn't mean the creation of the solar system because I didn't say the theory is about the creation of the solar system. God this is ridiculous... Try to pay attention. The theory is not about the creation of the solar system, its about events early on in the solar system leading to phenomenon we see today and the formation of the Earth from a collision. Its his theory about our solar system based on the Enuma Elish and modern science.

I said, "You haven't explained how the ancient cultures you claim had this knowledge achieved that knowledge."

And your reply to that was ETs, and now you're claiming that was in the title of the thread. (Evidence For "God")

You haven't even begun to explain how the ETs got here, why they came, where they went, and give evidence for all of that.

Thats nice, but it doesn't change the fact you thought people here are so stupid they need you to explain that God is an ET.

In your methodology. You take facts and try to fit them to your theory, forgetting what the facts mean or changing interpretations and perspectives to try to make them fit with your preconceived notions. That isn't science.

Spare me the generalities, how does science contradict the creation stories? You have a pre-conception of history that rules out ETs, so are you trying to ignore facts to fit into your version?

Stop *****ing about insults

Is that "whining" I hear? I detect an improvement in your character, hypocrisy is a step up from using strawmen.

t's your own fault you're in this mess. If you wanted a friendly discussion you shouldn't have kicked it off by calling me spineless.

What mess? You were acting like a jack ass before I started in about your lack of spine (it was a joke : since you missed the . I asked you to offer up your critique and instead of responding you ran off to another site and brought back a different theory to ridicule.

Your analogy is flawed. You were referencing something specific within a field, without specifying what. It's like if you were asking for discussion about a planet, but not telling us which one it was. I asked for clarification, to which you proceeded to throw a hissy fit.

What? Do you need a link to NASA so you can see what the solar system looks like or not? You demanded a link to the DNA, so I figured you would need a link to that too. No, I was being sarcastic Just shows your request for a link to evidence you already knew existed is...jelly-like... hehe

That's my point. It's all just unsupported speculation. Invisible Unicorn stuff.

Which is why you brought it up, right? But here was what I asked about

Aeson, do you have something to refute his theory about our solar system?

Instead of responding you ridiculed him for a theory he has about gold being needed on their planet. Now you complain that "his theory about the creation of the solar system" (which I didn't ask about) wasn't clear enough for you. Geez, considering I've been talking about the Enuma Elsih and his interpretation never mentioning once his other theories, how did you conclude I wanted you to introduce a different theory? You weren't responding to my request...

You made arguments in regards to those subjects. I'm not just going to drop them because you claim you want to stay on topic. If you want to stay on one topic, don't keep arguing on the topics you don't wish to discuss.

Didn't you just say it was you who introduced (and ridiculed) his theory about gold and their planet? It sure wasn't me. Thats your strawman, baby!

[Berzerker]

As for the seal itself... (since I ran into this while checking my references for that last post)

The Sumerians depict the Sun (or sun god Shamash) as a disk with lines inside it. They depict important stars as having points (6-8). Here's an example of the Star, Moon, and Sun symbols:

I already responded to Sandman's source, looks like I gotta repeat what I said because you're so good at reading.

The star does not represent a star, it represents Ishtar and her planet was Venus - the 8th planet. The Sumerian Mars was identified by a 6 pointed star and it is the 6th planet. Those 3 symbols represent 3 deities - Inanna/Ishtar (Venus), Sin (the Moon god), and Utu/Shamash (the Sun god). These 3 deities were kin and worship of one usually translated into worship of all three, hence their common grouping.

They also knew of "wandering stars", planets. Those they have names for are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. Interestingly enough, they didn't even think of the earth as a "wandering star".

Because the Earth is the platform from which they watched planets "wander" - traveling in "retrograde" as we pass by them on the inside. So what are these names?

The explanations I've run across so far are that it may be a depiction of a certain star associated with a god of harvest, or Venus passing through the Pleiades, or the divine counsel of 12 Gods with Anu as the central figure.

It is a star though, and not the Sun.

Well then we have a problem, you see, the Pleiades were supposedly represented by 7 ~equally sized dots in two rows of 3 and 4.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The Sumerians had a "year of God" so to speak, a "Divine Year" that the gods went by - 3600 years = 1 Sar or divine year (notice the word?). The Sar would come to be Caesar and Czar in later cultures.

I just noticed this while skimming. Ignoring the other ooga-booga crap, which I don't have time for, this is nonsense. IIRC "Caesar" means something like "ripped" in Latin, alluding to the circumstances of the fellow's birth. It started out as a sort of nickname, later became a noble title due to the man's prominence. Czar, of course, is just a russkified version of Caesar. Neither has anything to do with ancient Sumerian culture.

[Kuciwalker]

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Well then we have a problem, you see, the Pleiades were supposedly represented by 7 ~equally sized dots in two rows of 3 and 4.

You don't think they could have used a bit of artistic license, or that their style would change from time to time? It looks a lot more like the Pleiades than your tortured solar system. The alien scientists didn't even tell their mining-slave-drone-humans about the gas giant moons, the asteroids or the transplutonians.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I already responded to Sandman's source, looks like I gotta repeat what I said because you're so good at reading.

You can't just rehash Sitchin and pretend it validates what Sitchin said.

One thing from that post that needs to be addressed though:

But consider this, after traveling to Egypt and Mesopotamia, Democritus told his fellow Greeks that there are more planets than can be seen with the naked eye.

Democritus proposed that other stars were actually like our Sun, and that they had planets as well. He wasn't talking about planets orbiting our Sun. He was talking about planets orbiting around other stars.

The star does not represent a star, it represents Ishtar and her planet was Venus - the 8th planet. The Sumerian Mars was identified by a 6 pointed star and it is the 6th planet. Those 3 symbols represent 3 deities - Inanna/Ishtar (Venus), Sin (the Moon god), and Utu/Shamash (the Sun god). These 3 deities were kin and worship of one usually translated into worship of all three, hence their common grouping.

The symbol in your seal is a 6 pointed star. So you are saying it is Mars?

Because the Earth is the platform from which they watched planets "wander" - traveling in "retrograde" as we pass by them on the inside.

Yes, it was viewed differently than the wandering stars. In fact, Sumerian astronomy was geocentric. So they certainly wouldn't have represented the solar system as revolving around the Sun.

So what we're left with is:

- It's not the Sun in the center.
- They wouldn't have put the Sun in the center anyways.

So what are these names?

As you know they associated known solar bodies with gods. Here are the associations:

Moon - Nanna
Sun - Utu

Mercury - Enki
Venus - Inanna
Mars - Nergal
Jupiter - Enlil
Saturn - Ninurta

I know you want desperately for us to accept that because they had 12 deities in their pantheon (this is incorrect) that they must have known about 12 solar bodies, but that just doesn't hold up (even if it were correct). They had different ways of grouping the deities in their pantheon:

- 4 Primary deities. An, Enki, Enlil, Ninhursag.

- 7 as those "who decree fate". An, Enki, Enlil, Ninhursag likely included. (Though some would just use the 7 known solar bodies listed above.)

- 12 in their divine counsel. An, Ashur, Enlil, Enki, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Inanna, Utu, Nanna, Ninurta, Sherida, Utu, Sherida.

- Many more gods and demi-gods that didn't make these particular special groups.

Why should we jump to the conclusion that because we have 12 in the divine counsel that there must be 12 solar bodies? Why not 4? Or 7? Or one for every deity? Why should the number of Gods even be considered in the first place? They didn't even group the 7 to correspond to visible solar bodies as far as we know, as Ninhursag represents the earth (which was not considered the same as the wandering planets, Moon, or Sun), and An was never given a solar body to represent.

Well then we have a problem, you see, the Pleiades were supposedly represented by 7 ~equally sized dots in two rows of 3 and 4.

That's just one theory I ran across. I notice you don't address the other theories.

The reason I gave multiple theories is because no one knows for sure what those dots are meant to represent because it's not something that we have an explanation for. (Whereas we have Sumerian astronomical charts which don't include Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto or any other hypothetical planets.) The text on the seal doesn't reference what the star represented is, or what the dots around it are supposed to represent (if anything specific).

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Actually, the evidence for the mutation is the dramatic change in human morphology. I didn't say the DNA was evidence of any mutation.

Here's the transcript:

Aeson: "So they travel to earth to genetically engineer slaves (us) to mine gold for them..."

Berzerker: "Do you deny that the DNA evidence supports Sitchin?"

Aeson: "Introduce the "evidence" if you wish to discuss it. I'm not going to look into it for you."

Berzerker: "You dont even know about the DNA research placing our common ancestors ~250,000 years ago?"

Aeson: "Yes, if you want to discuss some specific finding, you'll have to link it. You're quite vague so far about what you are refering to, and what it has to do with what's been said (eg. genetic engineering by aliens)."

Berzerker: "Seriously, you never heard about the DNA researchers finding the mitochondrial "Eve"?"

---------------------

It is patently obvious from the discussion above that you presented mtMRCA as evidence supporting Sitchin's claims that we are genetically engineered by ETs. I refuted that, and now you even claim it wasn't evidence to support genetic engineering.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Accusing me of not knowing about the DNA based on words you put in my mouth.

Let's see...

Originally posted by Berzerker
The myth also says female "goddesses" were used to produce human babies but they grew tired and eventually humans with the ability to procreate were produced. We'll see if the male lineage stands up, but it doesn't refute the myth - it supports it. Our common mother goes back further than our common father.

This is a good illustration of how you've misinterpreted the meaning of MRCA. Here you are representing the later occurance of y-chromosome MRCA as being supporting evidence that there were no fathers at a point in time when there were mothers, while in reality it has nothing to do with whether there were fathers before that point in time.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The Moon is special because its not only part of the story, its staring us in the face.

You've already discounted visibility as a factor when supposing that the Sumerian "knowledge" of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (and the "12th planet") were based on knowledge from ETs and not visibility. You further discount visibility in assuming that the 2 most visible objects in the sky, the Sun and Moon, would be represented as similar size to the pins of light (and even absense of light) from the other objects you claim to be present.

Lets see, 5 small globes on one side of the star, 5 large globes on the other.

That is a terrible description.

There's 12 total objects. The center one is obviously a star (perhaps a wandering one, a planet), and is the largest object.

So which of the surrounding objects is the sun? And why is it smaller than the central star? You claim they include the Moon, and the Sun lappears the same size when viewed on Earth. These would be the largest objects depicted, and also had their own symbols which are not used.

You claim they include the Earth, but they would not depict the Earth in that manner. If they included the Earth, it would have to be the central object, as they were geocentric.

This leaves us with:

- No similarity between the surrounding objects and the Sun, Moon, or Earth. 3 of the solar bodies you claim are represented.

- No scientific confirmation of the 12th planet.

If we say one planet is in the middle, that leaves us only 7 objects to go with it. 8 if you want to pretend that there is a 12th planet. The seal is not a representation of the solar system as we know it, and it's not a representation of the solar system as the Sumerians knew it. It wouldn't be a representation of the solar system as any ETs capable of travelling to different planets would know it either.

Further, why include Pluto but not Ceres or Eris, the other 2 dwarf planets? Or for that matter why not include moons of other planets which are larger than Pluto (2306km in diameter)?

Callisto 4,800km
Europa 3126km
Ganymede 5276km
Io 3629km
Titan 5150km
Triton 2705km

What does the solar system look like? Five small inner bodies separated from 4 large bodies - the 12th planet makes for the 5th large globe in the depiction.

Well, there is no 12th planet first of all. We either have more planets than you're claiming (if we include large moons and dwarf planets) or less (if we stick to what is currently considered a planet).

Second the Moon isn't a planet and neither is the Sun. The largest body (the Sun) is in the center by 5 of the 6 smallest bodies. (If we ignore all the other bodies actually larger than Pluto that is.)

Well, they're either planets surrounding a star, or they're pimples on the artist's ass.

They don't have to be planets. (Which is silly to insist on as they including the Sun and Moon even by your count.) There are plenty of possible explanations. They could be other stars, or even abstract representations of something else.

What is clear is that the Sun, Moon, and Earth are not represented on that seal the way they are throughout the rest of Sumerian art and writing.

[Lancer]

Kid, I made it up. Do you not wonder why we're here? There must be a purpose for all this fuss... and it may be separating the wheat from the chaff. It might be that searching for answers is more interesting than having them, it may be to populate the fish tank, or to wonder or worship or tend the garden...and if its to tend the garden we'll be out a job as soon as the first wave of our replacements arrive.

Berzerker Keep thinking.

[Hueij]

There must be a purpose for all this fuss...

Oh? And why is that?