Ihedinobi3:

Hello. It has been a bit. I don't know if it is that you didn't get my last email or I didn't get your last, but I didn't hear back from you after I confirmed to you that I prefer to discuss via email. Did you get that last then?

I'm pretty certain i didn't. Let me have a look-see though. I'll mail you when i'm ready

TheArranger:

I'm pretty certain i didn't. Let me have a look-see though. I'll mail you when i'm ready

Very good. I'll look out for your email then.

LuciferImam:
The question is simple;

If Adam & Eve were created by God, why do they have belly buttons?

Note: Belly buttons are a sign of connection to a placenta (which signifies mammalian birth).

And if you try to twist this by claiming Adam & Eve didn't have belly buttons, explain how & when their offsprings developed belly buttons. (Bear in mind that Christianity opposes evolution).

No insults, just defend your faith.

Thank you.


lalasticlala, Seun,
alBHAGDADI I need answers

NB: No need to quote lengthy Bible verses. Just drop an answer that shuts me up.



*spits

Well educated scientist atheists are always stuck between confusion and knowledge, how much more a half-backed atheist like you, perhaps you don't even have any much scientific knowledge, only here to run mouth like tap.

First, let me clarify you: Before you confuse yourself, try to learn what Evolution, variation, natural selection, macroevolution and microevolution are.
No tangible religion goes against variation or little changes in species. It happens all the time, children may differ from parent in some characteristics; things differ from others when exposed to a different environment, weather and so on.
The only thing religion is against is explaining the whole existence and this vast universe from the parochial view of just evolution and big bang. That's too lame for anyone to claim.
Now to your question, just cut the crap. Nobody can give you a realistic answer of how Adam and Eve look like, any answer you get is as false as your question. But assuming Adam and Eve have no navel, it's possible their offspring have or maybe perhaps pregnancy was quite different then. Lots of things have changed since then till this time and things still continue to change.
There are and always will be lots of questions to ask as an atheist or as a theist, no side is safe from questions. Perhaps the view of evolution and big bang even probe more questions you can never answer than religion.
Only an half-backed atheist comes to a public forum like this with proud mind, thinking in your ignorance that evolution has solved the riddle of existence. Evolution is as vague as any other thing and learned atheist are never cleared about the real source of existence.
The only things learned atheists have done is to try to debunk religious books but neither have they also come up with any perfect unambiguous solution to existence.

Gratefulheart01:
[s]

Well educated scientist atheists are always stuck between confusion and knowledge, how much more a half-backed atheist like you, perhaps you don't even have any much scientific knowledge, only here to run mouth like tap.

First, let me clarify you: Before you confuse yourself, try to learn what Evolution, variation, natural selection, macroevolution and microevolution are.
No tangible religion goes against variation or little changes in species. It happens all the time, children may differ from parent in some characteristics; things differ from others when exposed to a different environment, weather and so on.
The only thing religion is against is explaining the whole existence and this vast universe from the parochial view of just evolution and big bang. That's too lame for anyone to claim.
Now to your question, just cut the crap. Nobody can give you a realistic answer of how Adam and Eve look like, any answer you get is as false as your question. But assuming Adam and Eve have no navel, it's possible their offspring have or maybe perhaps pregnancy was quite different then. Lots of things have changed since then till this time and things still continue to change.
There are and always will be lots of questions to ask as an atheist or as a theist, no side is safe from questions. Perhaps the view of evolution and big bang even probe more questions you can never answer than religion.
Only an half-backed atheist comes to a public forum like this with proud mind, thinking in your ignorance that evolution has solved the riddle of existence. Evolution is as vague as any other thing and learned atheist are never cleared about the real source of existence.
The only things learned atheists have done is to try to debunk religious books but neither have they also come up with any perfect unambiguous solution to existence.[/s]

Answer the question and stop blabbing.


*spits

LuciferImam:


Answer the question and stop blabbing.


*spits

I already answered your question lazy illiterate atheist. I took time to read your post, read mine too.

LuciferImam:


Answer the question and stop blabbing.


*spits

I already answered your question lazy illiterate atheist. I took time to read your post, read mine too.

LilMissFavvy:
God created Adam and Eve and gave them belly button. It is through their belly button that all other generations were birthed.

Belly buttons are connected by the umbilical cord to the placenta before being cut off. They do not just appear.
If Adam & Eve have belly buttons, whose placenta was it cut off from?

Gratefulheart01:
[s]I already answered your question lazy illiterate atheist. I took time to read your post, read mine too.[/s]

It was a simple Yes or No question.

Let's try it again, Did Adam & Eve Have Belly buttons?

LuciferImam:


It was a simple Yes or No question.

Let's try it again, Did Adam & Eve Have Belly buttons?

How do you expect a person living in 2019 to know if some people who lived in prehistoric times we never ever saw before have belly buttons or not? That's why i said in my post that anyone who claimed to know a direct answer to your question is as false as you.
You just an unrealistic person asking unrealistic question but you will get unrealistic answer from unrealistic religious people which will bring up unending unrealistic argument.
I already gave you the answer but you can keep looking for someone who lived during Adam and Even Era on NL who examined Adam and Eve's belly then who will give you your YES or NO answer.

Gratefulheart01:
[s]

How do you expect a person living in 2019 to know if some people who lived in prehistoric times we never ever saw before have belly buttons or not? That's why i said in my post that anyone who claimed to know a direct answer to your question is as false as you.
You just an unrealistic person asking unrealistic question but you will get unrealistic answer from unrealistic religious people which will bring up unending unrealistic argument.
I already gave you the answer but you can keep looking for someone who lived during Adam and Even Era on NL who examined Adam and Eve's belly then who will give you your YES or NO answer.[/s]

In summary, there is no proof.
It is all fiction?

LuciferImam:


In summary, there is no proof.
It is all fiction?

Same thing with big bang and evolution. They are mere fictions, theories and hypothesis. Nobody saw it with when some stars exploded and formed the universe. Just some scientific fallacy, conspiracy theories made popular by renowned scientists and made to look real by scientific models.
I already said a lot in my first reply to you: Whether you're a theist or atheist, there are always questions to both sides and perhaps evolution and big band brings up more confusion and questions than religion.
I also question some things in religions, that's why i'm a realistic question. I don't pretend as if i know everything.

Gratefulheart01:
[s]

Same thing with big bang and evolution. They are mere fictions, theories and hypothesis. Nobody saw it with when some stars exploded and formed the universe. Just some scientific fallacy, conspiracy theories made popular by renowned scientists and made to look real by scientific models.
I already said a lot in my first reply to you: Whether you're a theist or atheist, there are always questions to both sides and perhaps evolution and big band brings up more confusion and questions than religion.
I also question some things in religions, that's why i'm a realistic question. I don't pretend as if i know everything.[/s]

We'll try this again:

Did Adam & Eve have belly buttons?

LuciferImam:


We'll try this again:

Did Adam & Eve have belly buttons?

Let me phone a friend who lived during Adam's time.

Wack mumu upcoming atheist.

You didn't understand my message, if God can create man (Adam and Eve) why should we be surprised that he created them with belly buttons? He gave them belly button in preparation for the generations to come.

LuciferImam:


Belly buttons are connected by the umbilical cord to the placenta before being cut off. They do not just appear.
If Adam & Eve have belly buttons, whose placenta was it cut off from?

Ihedinobi3:

I think you didn't pay good attention to what you read. I did not say at any point that the umbilical cord is not a genetic structure. I said that it is not merely a cosmetic feature. Every human fetus, regardless what their other features may be, possesses an umbilical cord, or else it would not be viable. Of course, if the genes do not have the information, there would be no umbilical cord. But the umbilical cord is a critical function. It is useless unless a fetus is needing it to receive nourishment from an incubating parent.

Therefore, Adam's and Eve's lack of an umbilical cord would have absolutely no impact on their offspring, genetically speaking. The genes that they passed down to their children could still possess information for an umbilical cord even if they themselves lacked one, simply because without it it would be impossible to incubate human fetuses. All that was necessary was for Adam and Eve to possess the perfect blueprint of all human genetic information, in order for their offspring to possess features contained in any part of the genetic sequence that they inherit. Not for them to have all human features.

did the holy spirit tell you Adam had umbilical cord genes, or you just inferred? What else did he have? milk teeth genes and nipple genes? . It doesn't really make sense to be arguing about Jewish mythology. Adam could have navel or not, it is what you want to have that he will have. Someone once said his own Adam was black another argued his own was brown. It depends on what you think not a set of fact.

Ihedinobi3:

I believe it was you laughing at me for believing the Bible, and it was you mocking and making fun of me for believing these things I have been saying. Yeah, I think it is right to say that you care what I believe. And I advise that you should probably leave well enough alone unless you are actually willing to consider that what I believe may be true.

First, obviously, this is not an argument at all. You have not advanced any arguments or counter-arguments. You have asked questions that you didn't expect any reasonable answer to. And you have mocked and ridiculed a position you simply don't understand.

Second, you said this before and I ignored it, but you are wrong. This exchange began because I corrected what you implied that the Bible said. I did say in my first response to you that when people do not love the Truth, nothing will make them believe it, as long as they have the free will to choose whether or not to believe. That was to explain that your issue with the Bible has nothing to do with its veracity. It was in a later post that I told you that you were blind to the Truth. The reason for that was that you seemed to think that you had some superior right to decide what is ridiculous and what isn't.

Third, I'm not sure what you are calling a rant in any of my posts. My posts have been almost exclusively answers to the questions you presented as challenges. The few extra comments were to redirect attention to the point of our exchange, namely, to clarify the biblical position.

Fourth, I'm not certain how I have made this about me. You, on the other hand, have been responding like the conversation has been about me all along. That has occasioned my extra comments to redirect attention to what the Bible actually says as against what you misrepresent it to say.

Fifth, as I said, if you consider the Bible's position to be nonsense, that's really your cup of tea. I couldn't care less.

Sixth, I told you that you have not offered any kind of refutation against the biblical position. Your claim that the biblical position is not fact does not automatically become true because you made it. If you can show that any of the things that the Bible says is false, then you have reason to say that it is not fact. Otherwise, you cannot truthfully make such a claim.

Seventh, I have answered your questions as you have asked them. If you consider any of my answers a twisting of any truth or fact, you certainly have all the resources at your disposal to expose my dishonesty. It is an exchange after all. You are not muzzled.

Eighth, I have not needed to admit that I believe the Bible. I positively claimed and have maintained the claim that I believe the Bible. But I have not at any point so much as recognized any possibility that anything it says may not be true. I have absolutely no doubt that everything that the Bible teaches is true. Otherwise, why would I have been answering your questions until now?

Ninth, it is not my responsibility to make you understand or believe anything I say. I explained to you that the Bible's use of four corners to describe the Earth is no more a problem than it is for navigators and scientists to do. If you see any twisting in that, go on and demonstrate it. Or else, this is no more than whining on your part.

Tenth, the four corners of the Earth are the East, West, North, and South. Those points are where the angels stood.

Eleventh, off the top of my hat, I'm not sure, but I think I've read at least one old time navigator claim to have reached the northernmost part of the earth or something along those lines. It really doesn't matter either. You are probably the only person in the world who does not think of the Earth in terms of its four cardinal points. Most people talk about America, Canada etc in the West, China in the Far East, Russia and Greenland in the North, and Antarctica at least in the South.

Did you really think you've explained anything?

I started with the fact that the volume of water of earth couldn't have caused Noah's flood. You countered with your assertion that Water came from the deep sea of ice that's separating heaven and sheol from the earth. I asked for the location of this place. You said it's not in our universal, that they're above and below this universe. I was really amused that water could come from another place not in this universe and enter our universe, travel to our milky way galaxy and find it's way to our solar system and finally enter earth's atmosphere to cause the global flood and return thorough the same path back to its former destination. I have searched for that kind of explaination and I could not find since now how water could come from such a place to our place and return. So you see, you didn't explain anything, you just came with your inane explanation of how water came from heaven and hell when you didn't really know what you were saying.

And concerning the four corners of the earth.
Revelation 7:1 KJV
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

The corner in this verse is[i] "gonia"[/i] it means an angle, literally a corner in the Greek lexicon. It's a point where two lines meet. It's the same word Jesus used in Matthew when he was talking about Pharisees praying in the corners of the market for people to see them. So when Revelation talks about four corners, it's talking about angels standing at an angle. I asked for this position, you said east, west, north and south, how ridiculous. are north, south, west and east corners or angles to you? Liar that you are, where did the bible say in that passage that they were standing at north, south, east and west? The writers of the book thought the earth was flat and planar. No matter how the bible sounds ridiculous, you'll just find your mumu argument to want to try and make it make sense, but it's still rubbish. The angels were standing at angles in a corner in John's hallucinations, but you said they're standing at north, south, east and west.

TVSA:


Did you really think you've explained anything?

I started with the fact that the volume of water of earth couldn't have caused Noah's flood. You countered with your assertion that Water came from the deep sea of ice that's separating heaven and sheol from the earth. I asked for the location of this place. You said it's not in our universal, that they're above and below this universe. I was really amused that water could come from another place not in this universe and enter our universe, travel to our milky way galaxy and find it's way to our solar system and finally enter earth's atmosphere to cause the global flood and return thorough the same path back to its former destination. I have searched for that kind of explaination and I could not find since now how water could come from such a place to our place and return. So you see, you didn't explain anything, you just came with your inane explanation of how water came from heaven and hell when you didn't really know what you were saying.

And concerning the four corners of the earth.
Revelation 7:1 KJV
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

The corner in this verse is[i] "gonia"[/i] it means an angle, literally a corner in the Greek lexicon. It's a point where two lines meet. It's the same word Jesus used in Matthew when he was talking about Pharisees praying in the corners of the market for people to see them. So when Revelation talks about four corners, it's talking about angels standing at an angle. I asked for this position, you said east, west, north and south, how ridiculous. are north, south, west and east corners or angles to you? Liar that you are, where did the bible say in that passage that they were standing at north, south, east and west? The writers of the book thought the earth was flat and planar. No matter how the bible sounds ridiculous, you'll just find your mumu argument to want to try and make it make sense, but it's still rubbish. The angels were standing at angles in a corner in John's hallucinations, but you said they're standing at north, south, east and west.

First, you seem to still be laboring under the delusion that I was trying to convince you of the Truth of the Bible's position. I am not. I have not been this whole time. I only corrected what you said about the Bible. Whether you think it is true or believable does not matter to me. I already said that multiple times.

Second, about corners, I really cannot see any way to answer you on this one. If East, West, North and South do not qualify as corners to you, it is not within my ability to describe them to you.

Funaki:


did the holy spirit tell you Adam had umbilical cord genes, or you just inferred? What else did he have? milk teeth genes and nipple genes? . It doesn't really make sense to be arguing about Jewish mythology. Adam could have navel or not, it is what you want to have that he will have. Someone once said his own Adam was black another argued his own was brown. It depends on what you think not a set of fact.

I am not sure it is possible to explain to anyone who says the above how a human being who is the source of other human beings would possess the genetic information that defines its offspring's physical qualities.

LilMissFavvy:
You didn't understand my message, if God can create man (Adam and Eve) why should we be surprised that he created them with belly buttons? He gave them belly button in preparation for the generations to come.

Don't mind the clown, he is just an infant upcoming atheist and his question is invalid.
No educated atheist will ask if Adam and Eve have belly button or not. Assuming the bible talks about Adam and Eve having belly buttons, then he has a clear argument, but to just come to a forum and be asking is invalid; how do anyone know the answer since we didn't live during Adam time?
What learned atheist do is that, they will pick a clear verse in the Bible and debunk it e.g creation in seven days, flat earth etc. They expect you to defend the verse.
But for a person to just be asking if Adam has belly button or not is the dumbest lamest question i've ever heard from someone who is trying to show himself like an atheist.

dacanv:
I believe in evolution.. only a brain washed idiot would believe that man was created with sand.

Do you know that microprocessor was created from sand?

...... abi o, a very lame question I must confess. I ignored that post for a long time, read through peoples answers to the question, I wasn't satisfied with all the responses I saw there, dats why I decided to answer him.

Gratefulheart01:


Don't mind the clown, he is just an infant upcoming atheist and his question is invalid.
No educated atheist will ask if Adam and Eve have belly button or not. Assuming the bible talks about Adam and Eve having belly buttons, then he has a clear argument, but to just come to a forum and be asking is invalid; how do anyone know the answer since we didn't live during Adam time?
What learned atheist do is that, they will pick a clear verse in the Bible and debunk it e.g creation in seven days, flat earth etc. They expect you to defend the verse.
But for a person to just be asking if Adam has belly button or not is the dumbest lamest question i've ever heard from someone who is trying to show himself like an atheist.

[quote author=TVSA post=78863258]

Did you really think you've explained anything?

I started with the fact that the volume of water of earth couldn't have caused Noah's flood. You countered with your assertion that Water came from the deep sea of ice that's separating heaven and sheol from the earth. I asked for the location of this place. You said it's not in our universal, that they're above and below this universe. I was really amused that water could come from another place not in this universe and enter our universe, travel to our milky way galaxy and find it's way to our solar system and finally enter earth's atmosphere to cause the global flood and return thorough the same path back to its former destination. I have searched for that kind of explaination and I could not find since now how water could come from such a place to our place and return. So you see, you didn't explain anything, you just came with your inane explanation of how water came from heaven and hell when you didn't really know what you were saying.

And concerning the four corners of the earth.
Revelation 7:1 KJV
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

The corner in this verse is[i] "gonia"[/i] it means an angle, literally a corner in the Greek lexicon. It's a point where two lines meet. It's the same word Jesus used in Matthew when he was talking about Pharisees praying in the corners of the market for people to see them. So when Revelation talks about four corners, it's talking about angels standing at an angle. I asked for this position, you said east, west, north and south, how ridiculous. are north, south, west and east corners or angles to you? Liar that you are, where did the bible say in that passage that they were standing at north, south, east and west? The writers of the book thought the earth was flat and planar. No matter how the bible sounds ridiculous, you'll just find your mumu argument to want to try and make it make sense, but it's still rubbish. The angels were standing at angles in a corner in John's hallucinations, but you said they're standing at north, south, east and west

LuciferImam:
The question is simple;

If Adam & Eve were created by God, why do they have belly buttons?

Note: Belly buttons are a sign of connection to a placenta (which signifies mammalian birth).

And if you try to twist this by claiming Adam & Eve didn't have belly buttons, explain how & when their offsprings developed belly buttons. (Bear in mind that Christianity opposes evolution).

No insults, just defend your faith.

Thank you.


lalasticlala, Seun,
alBHAGDADI I need answers

NB: No need to quote lengthy Bible verses. Just drop an answer that shuts me up.



*spits

Op how do you know Adam and Eve had belly buttons, did you see them, ?

dacanv:
I believe in evolution.. only a brain washed idiot would believe that man was created with sand.

so who created the organisms, u and how about the universe can u explain how it was form

Ihedinobi3:

I am not sure it is possible to explain to anyone who says the above how a human being who is the source of other human beings would possess the genetic information that defines its offspring's physical qualities.

you are only surmising, you're very good at that. Most humans genome contain tiny snippets of DNA from many ancestors. There's no singular source of human beings.

Funaki:


you are only surmising, you're very good at that. Most humans genome contain tiny snippets of DNA from many ancestors. There's no singular source of human beings.

I would imagine that there isn't a single human being alive today who does not have two biological progenitors. So, of course, all living human beings today have more than one ancestor.

What I am wondering about is how you can go from that to the conclusion that there is "no singular source of human beings"? How is this not surmising on your part even if we were to accept that mine is any kind of surmising?

Ihedinobi3:

I would imagine that there isn't a single human being alive today who does not have two biological progenitors. So, of course, all living human beings today have more than one ancestor.

What I am wondering about is how you can go from that to the conclusion that there is "no singular source of human beings"? How is this not surmising on your part even if we were to accept that mine is any kind of surmising?

There is no singular source of human beings. We only have most recent common ancestors in the male and the female line. That doesn't mean only one singular couple are the source of all humans alive. The common male and female aren't fixed humans, they change after their line have been truncated. And the two didn't live at the same time.

Imagine if my paternal cousins and my siblings and I are the only population on earth. We share common ancestors (my paternal grand parents) but they are not the singular source for us. I have a mother, and my cousins too have parents from other grandparents that we don't have in common.

Funaki:


There is no singular source of human beings. We only have most recent common ancestors in the male and the female line. That doesn't mean only one singular couple are the source of all humans alive. The common male and female aren't fixed humans, they change after their line have been truncated. And the two didn't live at the same time.

Imagine if my paternal cousins and my siblings and I are the only population on earth. We share common ancestors (my paternal grand parents) but they are not the singular source for us. I have a mother, and my cousins too have parents from other grandparents that we don't have in common.

This is still, to use your word, "surmising" on your part.

The ultimate origin of human beings, according to the Bible, is a single human couple. Can this be proved? Probably not. Why do Christians believe it? Because God said so.

I get that you don't care what God says, but that is entirely your choice. And I am neither responsible nor interested in it. It is of course possible to claim that there were multiple original human progenitors, or that human beings evolved from this or that species etc, or that different "races" of human beings evolved from different branches in the evolutionary tree. But you would be in quite a bind if you tried to prove that any of these "guesses" is what actually happened. It is impossible to prove human origins. All we can do is choose what to believe.

Some things make sense to believe, and others don't. For Christians, it makes sense to us to believe that there was an original human couple from whom all humankind derives, because God said so. Our logic is simply that God must know, since He created everything including that couple Himself. If God cannot be believed, who can be?

It's just a simple error artists that paint the pictures of Adam and Eve make ; they include a belly button when it's clear that they shouldn't because they were, as believed by literal creationists, directly created by God. Their offspring, not the parents, should rightly bear belly buttons in their pictorial depictions of the creation story.

Ihedinobi3:

This is still, to use your word, "surmising" on your part.

The ultimate origin of human beings, according to the Bible, is a single human couple. Can this be proved? Probably not. Why do Christians believe it? Because God said so.

I get that you don't care what God says, but that is entirely your choice. And I am neither responsible nor interested in it. It is of course possible to claim that there were multiple original human progenitors, or that human beings evolved from this or that species etc, or that different "races" of human beings evolved from different branches in the evolutionary tree. But you would be in quite a bind if you tried to prove that any of these "guesses" is what actually happened. It is impossible to prove human origins. All we can do is choose what to believe.

Some things make sense to believe, and others don't. For Christians, it makes sense to us to believe that there was an original human couple from whom all humankind derives, because God said so. Our logic is simply that God must know, since He created everything including that couple Himself. If God cannot be believed, who can be?

I'm not surmising, nobody uses that word for genealogical DNA testing. You just called the combined works of international government bodies a "guess work".

Funaki:


I'm not surmising, nobody uses that word for genealogical DNA testing. You just called the combined works of international government bodies a "guess work".

I wasn't surmising either. You just called the Very Words of God a "guesswork"!

dacanv:
I believe in evolution.. only a brain washed idiot would believe that man was created with sand.

don't believe in evolution believe in the most high God pls pls

heaven and hell is real


gist me about that evolution because have heard it from about 3 atheist