I am wondering how a "serious" debate can be had when the caller of said debate has facts wrong.

Modern "astrology" may indeed have Hellenistic roots, however, the divination of signs/conjunctions/alignments and perceived powers/celestial will derived from regions of space associated with what we today call the Zodiacal constellations predates the Classical Greek Age by a few thousand years.

(Edit: I originally said "Hellenistic roots" for modern astrology. I should, now that I think on it, say "Hellenistic influences" since the root can be more accurately planted in Sumerian soil — perhaps even earlier.)

__________________
"A subtle thought that is in error may yet give rise to fruitful inquiry that can establish truths of great value." - Isaac Asimov