Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Well did he?

np

The point I was making refers to the thread below. If a creator decided to create in 6 days (heavens and earth Gen 1) then it is possible Adam did not have a belly button because he was created with age as well, right? Maybe not. If God created with age then Adam might have a belly button just to fool the democrats.

Actually that is what got Michelangelo in trouble. When he painted the Sistene Chapel he painted Adam with. a later Pope had the belly buttons painted over as they were "sinful".

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Posted by: rearfang at Tue Nov 1 07:00:03 2005 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

Actually that is what got Michelangelo in trouble. When he painted the Sistene Chapel he painted Adam with. a later Pope had the belly buttons painted over as they were "sinful".

If Adam HAD it would also explain a lot of the other stuff that the church is proclaiming. Things like the stars and the heavens being created with age *poof*(ex nilio)out of nothing and other things being created out of something else (mediate creation) with age as well.

If the church adhered to immediate creation that would explain the evolutionasts theories and it would also help the right- wing stances on abortion ,soul being created ex nilio as well.

The "belly button" is from when a person, as an embryo, had an umbilicus. Why would Adam have a belly button? I brought this up (along with some others) in ALL of the posts where evolution has been debated.
-----
www.hullabalooherps.com

The "belly button" is from when a person, as an embryo, had an umbilicus. Why would Adam have a belly button? I brought this up (along with some others) in ALL of the posts where evolution has been debated.

Because God created Adam with age (a fully formed adult man)and if he created the stars with age why not a man with a belly button? That would explain all the light years it takes for the stars to reach this planet. It also explains the 6 day creation in Genesis. Frankly I don't undertand why this is so hard to beleive. You have mediate and immediate creation. Some things God crated mediatly (out of something else) and some thing immediatly (out of nothing).

I don't find it hard to believe, I don't believe it at all. The belly button is the result of something that had a use (umbilical cord). If Adam were created as an adult there would have been no use for a belly button, therefore there would be no belly button. Let us all know if you evidence to the contrary. This is a pointless debate, you have your beliefs and no evidence other than a book that has been interpreted to mean different things to different people. I have science.
-----
www.hullabalooherps.com

This is a pointless debate, you have your beliefs and no evidence other than a book that has been interpreted to mean different things to different people. I have science.

I'm sorry, I must have the wrong forum. I thought this was the open discussion forum.

I'll talk with ya....

See it's very simple. Adam (according to Genesis) was not born in the usual way. The Belly button would be the umbillical scar. So Adam couldn't have one....

...Unless you ask my niece who says, "God made Adam and when he was finished...poked him in the belly and said..."DONE!""

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

See it's very simple. Adam (according to Genesis) was not born in the usual way. The Belly button would be the umbillical scar. So Adam couldn't have one....

yes but if God created the stars with age and the earth with age why not Adam? According to Genesis he was formed out of the dust as a fully grown man with age.

Don't get me wrong I know its silly to argue this but it does put a slant on FAITH. Why beleive God is only capable of using evolution to create? Whats the point of using up millions of years when Gods agenda was for mankind to have a relationship with Him? I can see if you beleive an intelligent designer left this world to run on batteries and has no interest in us whatsoever. I can tell from some that have replied to this thread that this reasoning will make some of you want to scream or laugh out loud but I feel the same way about some of the "scientific" repsponses. Lets keep the heat out and play nice.

1) I don't begin with trying to prove a creator. But rather lets start with there is a creator out there.

2) I don't want to get into a debate about ecclesiolgy.

Does it really matter if anyone BELIEVES Adam existed or if he had a belly button? None of it can be proven, there is NO evidence!!
-----
www.hullabalooherps.com

The point was I was answering the evolution v.s. a 6 day debate below this thread . By saying Adam had a belly button was in response to God creating this world in 6 days WITH age. I am starting with the science of God and not the science of still trying to prove there is no God.

I understand your position is there is no God because you canot prove it. I say you can. Just look around you. Look at your hand and how is moves. Can you actually say that one day there was nothing and that one day nothing decided to become something. Then an amoeba was formed and it grew limbs and crawled out to land and became man and asked "how did I get here?"

Actually you can look at your hand and see..A Hand!

It is (excuse me) a foolish piece of rationalisation to say that just because something is complex, a creator had to make it.

Science is full of so called miracles that would fill those shepherds in Isreal with awe if they had seen it. Explain a telephone to an Isrealite of 1 AD. Or how about radio or TV. Shoot...explain it to me, I don't know why it works.

The point is that things may be difficult to explain, but that is no proof that a God did it.

Life? Why not? it's chemical reactions on the molecular level. With the ultra trillion or more chemical reactions that occur within a single cubic foot, that one produced life is no big deal.

Using your logic, one could say itelligence must be behind a volcano eruption because one minute it was calm and the next instant BOOM!

The burden of proof of a supreme being does not lay with those who do not buy into the theory. It correctly sits with those who proclaim it is the truth. No one has managed to provide a single piece of evidence of a God that cannot be explained thru science.

The only "evidence" is testimonials of rather primitive (by today's standard) Farmers and self proclaimed Holy Men and visionaries; otherwise known as The Bible (and assorted scrolls).

For that matter, there is just as much reason (and evidence)to believe in Zeus, Baal, or any other being of supernatural nature as there is to believe Christians got it right.

Simply put, God is your theory, not mine. I see no reason to buy into it.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Because if you were you would be the worst bible thumpers around! I could see you approaching me at the supermarket parking lot or knocking on my door. *Arrggh!*.... here they come. Ha ha ha!

this thread (started by me) has nothing to do with whether there IS a God... It starts with God. It has nothing to do with argueing if God exists. Why hyjack this thread and force your beliefs on everyone. If you don't beleive in a creator then simply don't reply. If you DO beleive in a creator then welcome to the real world and please reply. Its that simple. Jeesh!

Gee, I thought this was the open discussion forum. (Sound Familiar?) You asked a question, we answered it.
-----
www.hullabalooherps.com

Here is what scares me:
Not understanding the difference between having a right to open a discussion and the appropriateness of that discussion in a given context.

>>Science is full of so called miracles that would fill those shepherds in Isreal with awe if they had seen it. Explain a telephone to an Isrealite of 1 AD. Or how about radio or TV. Shoot...explain it to me, I don't know why it works.

Asmov liked to quote it, but he didn't originate it.... I don't remember the exact words but it basically says that "and technology so far advanced that you can't understand it is indistiguishable from magic." Fits here, I think.

>>For that matter, there is just as much reason (and evidence)to believe in Zeus, Baal, or any other being of supernatural nature as there is to believe Christians got it right.

You'll like this word then: polyatheist - there are many gods in which I do not believe.

>>Simply put, God is your theory, not mine. I see no reason to buy into it.

I think it is more of a hypothesis and not theory.

Personally, I'm not an atheist. I'm a solipsist at heart bordering on an agnostic who has his own leanings toward his understanding of god that I really never voluntarily share with anyone but very close friends. I do like to disagree with those that insist my being is proof of a god, expect me to accept that, but get made when I say that my being here is nothing more than the result of the laws of this universe acting in a specific, logically predictable way. ...and I love pissing off religious hypocrites whenever I come across them anywhere in my life....lol.

KJ

Not to be rude but:
does a solipsist really have close friends or just imaginary friends?
Jim

>>1) I don't begin with trying to prove a creator. But rather lets start with there is a creator out there.

Let's have a discussion as long as we agree with you?

Lol Nice terms there!

However, Your suggestion that we should start with accepting the statement that there "is a God" flies in the face of everything aid here.

No can go with that statement...If you start to build logic on an unproven statement, then you build your house on a deck of cards.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

well it looks like you guys are the majority on this forum so its pointless to have a discussion starting WITH a creator.

There are many books written that argue the point (pro/con) of an existence of a supreme being. I am sure you have read them. So have I.

Have fun !

As I said, pointless since the initial premise has not been accepted.

Was fun Blue.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

>>Lol Nice terms there!

I think you missed that my statement was made purely sarcastic. I found his suggestion to agree that their is a god (and only one god, I guess) before we could argue about god pretty humorous and useless. In a kind of "Hey, let's argue about if dark blue or light blue is prettier as long as you agree that blue is prettier than all other colors" type of deal.
KJ

Sarcasm noted (lol). Got to remmember that second cup of coffee!

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

>>I don't find it hard to believe, I don't believe it at all. The belly button is the result of something that had a use (umbilical cord). If Adam were created as an adult there would have been no use for a belly button, therefore there would be no belly button. Let us all know if you evidence to the contrary. This is a pointless debate, you have your beliefs and no evidence other than a book that has been interpreted to mean different things to different people. I have science.

The naval is a scar and not a true genetic feature of the human race. I doubt Adam had one just like I doubt he had any other scars. It is safe to assume he was created with flawless skin.

BUT, this question is as pointless as asking if the easter bunny had a naval for many of the same reasons IMO.
KJ

... he never existed. We are the result of an archetype. One line of this archetype developed to apes, the other to humans.

No mammal ever existed without a belly button (including humans).

I don't understand why evolution and faith should be a contradiction.
-----
The #1 Boa constrictor site in the world wide web

>>I don't understand why evolution and faith should be a contradiction.'

One is based on evidence the other, by defintion is not.
-----
CDieter
'Reason, observation, and experience; the holy trinity of science.'

>>No mammal ever existed without a belly button

>>No mammal ever existed without a belly button

>>No mammal ever existed without a belly button (including humans).

What the %$#(*.
Whatever won't let me complete a simple thought is evil. My point is that platypuses don't have navels and since they where at least once classified as mammals than a mammal did once exist without a belly button. Unless they have navels.

I am on your side. If Adam did not have a navel than God laid an egg to create the human race.

LOL, I think a better question would be............Did God have a belly button? After all, he made Adam in His image. Yes? No?

Quig

So then we have to wonder, did Eve have a belly button?

Hmmmmm, I don't know, lemme go find out

Quig

Well did he?

Man, I loved that show.

Yes she did.

Quig

Glad to see that someone else appeciates the important stuff.