Did Adam Have a Navel?

GuanYin

This is a question referred to as the omphaloidean heresy, in late medieval Christianity.

It was later a major philisophical debate over the alleged conflict between science and theology, or more to the point the creationist theories arising from Biblical Genesis and the perceived flaws in evolutionary theory.

The consequences of this seemingly trivial are quite important.

If Adam didn't have a navel, then he wasn't human. He was theologically speaking,a different species to mankind, so his and eve's sins could hardly be transferred to mankind. The imperfect world couldn't be blamed on man, seeing as the world was set up imperfectly to begin with.

If Adam DID have a navel, then God set up the world to look like it had a histroy predating creation. Adam had a navel even though it was never attached to an umbilical chord. The trees in teh Garden of Eden probably had rings accounting for seasons that never happened, there would have been decaying leaved making up soil and sedement and fossils......

So if the world looks like it is older than the time allowed by the bible, surely its as easy to believe that it is older, seeing as thats the way God obviously wanted it. That means though that the inconsistent fossil records that are cited in debunking evolutionary theory is actually finding flaws and inconsistancy in Gods creation......


As you can see, this simple question caused theological havoc.... and whileits not as important today, it still is a question not easily regarded by many creationists....

Seamie

Ok, but if Adam and Eve didn't have navels, and their kids did, then obviously a navel was a genetic mutation in the kids. Now, I don't know biology and whatnot well enough to know how big a difference it takes to be classified as a different species, but if you were arguing to defend original sin, then even if Adam's descendants were genetically another species, they'd still be his direct descendants, and so liable for original sin...

GuanYin

Originally posted by Seamie
Ok, but if Adam and Eve didn't have navels, and their kids did, then obviously a navel was a genetic mutation in the kids. Now, I don't know biology and whatnot well enough to know how big a difference it takes to be classified as a different species, but if you were arguing to defend original sin, then even if Adam's descendants were genetically another species, they'd still be his direct descendants, and so liable for original sin...

Biologically, you wouldn't see umbilical chords appear over a generation, it would have to occur over hundreds of generations. In biology you would have quite a few intermediate states between any to evolutionary species. Either way, you still have a different species seeing as Adam and Eve would not be the same creature as the rest of man kind.

But if Adam's decendents ae not the same as man, then how can man how can mankind be blamed? Adam was obviously a less advanced creature. he was version 1.1 everyone else is version 2.01. How can the sins of a primative version of mankind be transferred to all oteh rmen who are more advanced?

flogen

you know, when i saw the title to this, i thought, hes takin the piss, right, but this is actuallly a very interesting debate...:D

its impossible to answer IMO, without alot of ifs and buts... for example, perhaps Adam was the result of some kind of cosmic birth... he was born through god as you and i are through woman, therefore he had a navel, but it wasnt as a result of god trying to fool the world into believing a false age... as i said, alot of ifs and buts (and, tbh, not something Id really believe, just like the actual story of Adam and Eve... didnt the church just say it was a metaphor?), but given that my faith is not exactly the strongest, nor am I the most read in Biology, Archeology or Religion, Im not going to even attempt to give a more rational answer.

Flogen

Amz

But if as you say Flogen Adam was born of god as we are of woman, then wouldn't he be the son of god and therefore Jesus couldn't be right?

And the son of God could hardly have been capable of original sin?

And if he was born of God then God mustn't be male?

GuanYin

Originally posted by flogen
you know, when i saw the title to this, i thought, hes takin the piss, right, but this is actuallly a very interesting debate...:D

its impossible to answer IMO, without alot of ifs and buts... for example, perhaps Adam was the result of some kind of cosmic birth... he was born through god as you and i are through woman, therefore he had a navel, but it wasnt as a result of god trying to fool the world into believing a false age...

Ok then, if thats the case, did the trees in the garden of eden have rings?
Was the soil made of the decay of leaves from trees that had previously existed or not?

flogen

good points amz... thats exactly why Im not even going to try and make a guess at this...

as for rthe rings on the trees.... I dunno..does the bible mention it? its impossible for me to answer that, id just be guessing

ok, how about this... adam was missing a navel, and so you refer to him as unhuman, as the navel is a part of the human body. what about people born with no arm, or leg or genitalia?? are they not human?

Flogen

Amz

That's a genetic mutation, Adam having no naval is not a mutation.

flogen

whats the difference? define mutation and evolution, and show how a lack of a navel is related to evolution, and how a lack of an arm is a mutation?

Flogen

bizmark

Originally posted by Amz
And if he was born of God then God mustn't be male?

You say that like an all powerful "god" who created the universe couldn’t just click its fingers and create a human? Why does it have to be male or female?

Meh it’s all bull**** anyway tbh we evolved some all powerful god thing didn’t create us

Amz

I made that point bizmark in response to Flogen's point about Adam being born of God as we are of a woman.

There was no mention of finger clicking there.... Id not have made that point if he hadn't likened it to our own births.

bizmark

Ah sorry amz i didnt read flog's post (doh)

Amz

Adam would have been created without a naval, therefore in "god's" eyes he would have been genetically perfect it wouldn't have been a mutation.

A missing arm is a mutation people wouldn't evolve with missing arms unless it was beneficial to their survival etc.
Like syke has already stated the umbilical chord would have developed over many generations. It didn't just appear in Adam's immediate descendants.

Amz

Originally posted by bizmark
Ah sorry amz i didnt read flog's post (doh)

No prob

Seamie

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but we have anvel because we were attatched to an umbilical cord, right? so if onehad never been attached to an umbilical cord, would one have a navel? Ok, we'd have the genes for it, but if an umbilical cord had never been attached, then would a navel have developed?

Amz

Why would Adam have posessed the genetic material to provide his offspring with something he never needed and had so far not proved to be advantagous?

And if Eve was created using a rib from Adam why would she carry that genetic material?

flogen

good point seamie... given that the navel is useless to us after birth, then Adam, being someone who was never born, would have no need for one, but as has been said, would have the genes so that his child would have one.

and if the umbilical cord had to evolve over generations, how did kane and able survive in the womb?? theyd starve without an umbilical cord

Flogen

Amz

How do you know that Kane and Able were born in the same way as you or I?

Insofar as they would have had an umbilical chord?

I don't it's mentioned anywhere that they had a naval...

Seamie

Originally posted by Amz
Why would Adam have posessed the genetic material to provide his offspring with something he never needed and had so far not proved to be advantagous?

And if Eve was created using a rib from Adam why would she carry that genetic material?

IF you believe in creationism (And to be honest I don't, but i'm playing devil's advocate) then God could have supplied Adam with the genetic material because He knew Adam's off-spring would need it. The great ineffible plan and all that.

flogen

could you please explain to me so, how they were born? and when exactly humans began to be born in the way we know??

and what seamie said.... as he had no need for a navel, he wasnt given one, however his children did need one, and he had the correct human genes to provide one

Flogen

GuanYin

Originally posted by flogen
could you please explain to me so, how they were born? and when exactly humans began to be born in the way we know??

and what seamie said.... as he had no need for a navel, he wasnt given one, however his children did need one, and he had the correct human genes to provide one

Flogen

OK, but two things.

This is based on a model for darwinian evolution (although a one generation change wouldn't be) that gives you afossil record that debunks the theory of creationism. You can't have it both ways.

Even still, it'd be a separate species.

flogen

ok, we'll go with darwin for now... or i will anyway.
so if adam was born without a navel, when did the modern human form come into being? and how did the people inbetween carry children and feed them without the ubilical cord?

how could adam not have just been made with a navel anyway? and why would that instance HAVE to mean the trees and dirt was made to look older?

Flogen

Amz

Why would God make things with navals etc which are utterly useless and serve no purpose?

Why would God have made something which would have been, as such, imperfect?

flogen

it would serve a purpose, as a provision for future generations, while Adam did not need it, his children would, therefore he did indirectly need it in order to further the human race.

and it would be actual perfection, as a human body without a navel is imperfect, as it is imcomplete

Flogen

GuanYin

Originally posted by flogen
ok, we'll go with darwin for now... or i will anyway.
so if adam was born without a navel, when did the modern human form come into being? and how did the people inbetween carry children and feed them without the ubilical cord?

how could adam not have just been made with a navel anyway? and why would that instance HAVE to mean the trees and dirt was made to look older?

Flogen

Read the initial post flogen.

If Adam has a navel, which would be perfectly fine, it mean sthat god made Adam look like he was born of a womb.

Which means it looked as if there was a "before creation" so even if he didn't give the tree's rings and made the dirt from decomposed foliage (andin this case he was iinconsitant and the garden itself was untrue to nature), adam still looked to have a prehistory.

Now, science estimates the earth at being older than the bible and creationism tells us. So like Adam, we could assume that God wanted it to look that way. but then, the discrepencies in the earths age and fossil record are the main arguements to disprove darwinian evolution. In making these arguments you are highlighting a flaw in gods work...... its a paradox of sorts.

Seamie

I don't see why though, if Adam had the genes that would allow the development of a navel, but no actual navel itself, since one never grew, that he's counted as a different species from humans with navels. I mean, genetically he's the same, no?

ykt0di9url7bc3

hahahahaha


God made Adam in his own image

Victor

Originally posted by Amz
Why would God have made something which would have been, as such, imperfect?

Well he made man didn't he?

ferdi

Did Adam Have a Navel?

no.

Stark

I do computer science and follow scientific trends in general. One of these trends is that in order to create a system that is self-repairing and highly adaptable, the best way to go about creating it is using a model based on evolution (this is still in its infancy, but it is considered the way to go). Hmmm, a self-repairing and highly adaptable system, sound familiar? It's entirely likely that God, advanced hunk of love that he is (I hope sycophants get into heaven ) used evolution as a means to developing humans. Now if only there was evidence hinting to this

In response to the "Did Adam have a navel?" question, define Adam. Is he the first modern human? (that's hard to pin down as there would have been a gradual progression). Is he the first human to have a soul? (If we're going on the Christian assumption that animals don't have souls). Was he the first life form to split into male and female allowing sexual reproduction?

Auburn

Seamie - navels aren't developed. You don't need genes for their development. They're something you have since birth if you were born of a womb, due to the cutting away of the umbilical cord.

Therefore, what people are trying to say is: if Adam didn't have a navel, then he wasn't attached to an umbilical cord and wasn't born of a womb. One of the fundamental characteristics of the human species is that they were carried in their mother's womb and fed through an umbilical cord. If this wasn't the case with Adam, then he couldn't have been human as we know it.

Stark

Going on this *very* hypothetical line of thinking, maybe God had some great big incubation tank which supplied nutrients to little experiment Adam through an umbilical cord?

Auburn

Yes....... maybe Adam was the first test tube baby

Yoda

I am astonished to see this question discussed as though Adam were a fact.

ecksor

Originally posted by Yoda
I am astonished to see this question discussed as though Adam were a fact.

Surely any philosophical conversation has to start assuming something.

Yoda

"Assume that we know nothing about evolutionary biology, and that ex-nihilo myths about the origin of life are true."

The discussion that follows is not philosophy. It's fantasy. It's not even science fiction.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Yoda
"Assume that we know nothing about evolutionary biology, and that ex-nihilo myths about the origin of life are true."

The discussion that follows is not philosophy. It's fantasy. It's not even science fiction.

Did you actually read the thread? Because the point seems to have passed you by at speed.

Nobody is debating this as fact.

The question was a philosophical debate opressed by the christian authorities (who had pokers in an entirely different philosophical way) because it made them feel very uneasy about their beliefs.

If people want to thrash out the details of the debate, in much the same thinking as the christians and "heretics" did, all the better, its interesting discussion.

Yoda

Well, if you think arguing the points of questions whose answers don't matter is a valuable exercise, have fun. Sorry if I don't see the point of it.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Yoda
Well, if you think arguing the points of questions whose answers don't matter is a valuable exercise, have fun. Sorry if I don't see the point of it.

Well if it means that much to you, don't read or post

Yoda

Arguing the merits of questions which do matter would seem to be the proper use of philosophy.

Ooh, look. We've come upon a real philosophical question....

GuanYin

Originally posted by Yoda
Arguing the merits of questions which do matter would seem to be the proper use of philosophy.

Ooh, look. We've come upon a real philosophical question....

Is there any particular reason you're thread spoiling?

ecksor

Originally posted by Yoda
"Assume that we know nothing about evolutionary biology, and that ex-nihilo myths about the origin of life are true."

The discussion that follows is not philosophy. It's fantasy. It's not even science fiction.

I'm not sure if that's philosophy or not, but you certainly didn't answer my question. Every conclusion is based upon assumptions if you look deeply enough. You don't get to pick and choose what assumptions other people are allowed to work from.

Yoda

There is a branch of philosophy concerned with logic; that involves, sometimes, taking arbitrary propositions and playing them out. Perhaps that is what this question is about.

simu

The discussion that follows is not philosophy. It's fantasy. It's not even science fiction.

I wouldn't be that harsh! There are a lot of ideas to be found throughout the history of philosophy that, although considered to be quirky and irrelevant today, were major issues in the past.

Georgiana

Am I missing something here but are people actually taking this question seriously??? There was no Adam, no naval, no Garden, no rings on trees in Eden-Are there still intelligent people who actually believe in all that- all maybe ye are all just having the craic ??

Capt'n Midnight

Always liked that theory that the universe was created 5 minutes ago, complete with people with fake memories.

There was a medieval tradition of putting delibrate flaws in paintings and stuff, the implication being that since only God could make something perfect then having to blemish their work meant it was damn close.

Are the genesis days supposed to be taken as such or as other segments of time ? - Did God create Adam as a full adult or perhaps he was grown (rapidly) from a placenta. He didn't need to be born to have a naval.

But from a modern perspective, most species have genes that aren't expressed so not having a naval would be enough to create a new species - since Adam and Eve had fertile offspring.

PS. Georgiana - you think it irrelevant yet you still proclaim there was "no naval"

Georgiana

There was no naval because there was no Adam - but anyway I'm out of here because I think this thread is not for me-hope you all find some truths or insights

Deacon Blues

If Adam and Eve had two sons Cain and Abel, and probably some daughters ... are we all the result of this incest fest ?? Or did God also create the Smiths in the cave down the hill, but nobody wrote about them because they weren't the first ?

This has always troubled me about Genesis, so it's a serious question. How does Christianity resolve this ??

GuanYin

Originally posted by Georgiana
There was no naval because there was no Adam - but anyway I'm out of here because I think this thread is not for me-hope you all find some truths or insights

I think you're misisng the point.

They are not debating the "fact" they are debating the philisophical ideals behind what christianity spent a few hundred years preaching and how the questions cast shuc doubt in the minds of the church that theologens were forbidden, on pain of torture and death, from discussing.

simu

Originally posted by Deacon Blues
If Adam and Eve had two sons Cain and Abel, and probably some daughters ... are we all the result of this incest fest ?? Or did God also create the Smiths in the cave down the hill, but nobody wrote about them because they weren't the first ?

This has always troubled me about Genesis, so it's a serious question. How does Christianity resolve this ??

I've heard fundamentalist Christians claim that human DNA was "flawless" at the time of Adam and Eve and that, so, incest wasn't a problem as the children produced would be in perfect health. That's also why they were supposed to live so long.

Or else, as you said, that god created other humans but that the prophets didn't bother mentioning that in the bible.

Most Christians don't take all of the bible literally, though.

Deacon Blues

OK. Sorry if I'm hijacking this thread. If anybody wants me to start a new one, let me know.

I don't take the bible literally, but it seems that fundamentalist Christians do. So, it was from this point of view that I was wondering how they handle the incest 'problem'. OK, so they say that human DNA is perfect, so there's no 'mutation' problem (???????? !!!!!!!). But what about the Taboo problem ??? Do fundementalist Christians accept incest now, or is it only in early biblical times that it was OK ?