Did Adam and Eve have a belly button?

[Split Rock]

Usually, those who don't dabble in the Truth, dabble in fiction.

If you can discuss Star Wars, Star Trek, Santa, and others fluently, then what does that tell me?

C'mon, AVET... you guys have little interest in the "Truth." Just what is convenient and what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. If reading scripture the way it was intended is too hard, then you just read it wrong. If what the writers intended to relate makes you feel bad or frightens you, you just misinterpret what they wrote.

 

[FaithPrevails]

From Wikipedia:
Neither Adam, nor Eve were newborn babies.

In addition, Eve coming from Adam's rib, yet having a belly button, is like building a car from scratch, then putting a VIN number on it.

 

[FaithPrevails]

I hear that they could present some danger if a woman gets pregnant.

I didn't have any issues with mine when I was pregnant, though I did end up taking it out for different reasons than the pregnancy while I was pregnant. I had a friend who left hers in for the duration of her pregnancy.

 

[dad]

I didn't have any issues with mine when I was pregnant, though I did end up taking it out for different reasons than the pregnancy while I was pregnant. I had a friend who left hers in for the duration of her pregnancy.

Maybe what I heard was wrong then. But maybe if someone had a real big baby, or some such, there could be tears with all the pressure.
Maybe just a good old fashioned bone through the nose might suffice?

 

[dad]

Let's see. God supposedly made man in his image. Since we all have belly buttons, God must have one too so he would have made Adam and Eve with belly buttons as well. Unless of course parts of the Bible are not meant to be taken literally.

If Adam didn't have one, that would solve that attempted dilemma...

 

[dad]

Is this like "Have you observed people not observing the flood?"

Sorta. People should be careful making claims like that based on ignorance, and not knowing.

 

[dad]

Irrelevant, since Isochron Dating makes no assumptions about starting daughter material. I would have expected God's One True Prophet on Earth to have known that...

Evo PRATT.

You see, "All forms of isochron dating assume that the source of the rock or rocks contained unknown amounts of both radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element, along with some amount of the parent nuclide."

That means in layman terms they assume a present state! Therefore it is same state past dating all the way, and nothin but.

Of course it goes on from there into pure present state modeling from there also.

" As time goes on, some amount of the parent decays into the radiogenic isotope of the daughter,.."

They as per their usual belief based modus opereni, attribute the daughter to the decay of the parent.

"The greater the initial concentration of the parent, the greater the concentration of the radiogenic daughter isotope will be.."

False! That is only if the daughter got there by decay. (as we see it now be produced)

And they end up with the same old same old wrong conclusions.

"Thus, the ratio of the daughter to non-radiogenic isotope will become larger with time, while the ratio of parent to daughter will become smaller."


100% old time religion.

 

[Split Rock]

Sorta. People should be careful making claims like that based on ignorance, and not knowing.

If that were true, you would never post here, dad.

Evo PRATT.

You see, "All forms of isochron dating assume that the source of the rock or rocks contained unknown amounts of both radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element, along with some amount of the parent nuclide."

That means in layman terms they assume a present state! Therefore it is same state past dating all the way, and nothin but.

Of course it goes on from there into pure present state modeling from there also.

" As time goes on, some amount of the parent decays into the radiogenic isotope of the daughter,.."

They as per their usual belief based modus opereni, attribute the daughter to the decay of the parent.

"The greater the initial concentration of the parent, the greater the concentration of the radiogenic daughter isotope will be.."

False! That is only if the daughter got there by decay. (as we see it now be produced)

And they end up with the same old same old wrong conclusions.

"Thus, the ratio of the daughter to non-radiogenic isotope will become larger with time, while the ratio of parent to daughter will become smaller."


100% old time religion.

Please stop blathering about past and present "states" until you can provide us with just ONE example where actual scientists are wrong about some measurement of a different state object, and you have a more accurate measurement to offer us. Anything... age, distance, whatever. Just ONE, dad. If not, I will continue to take whatever you post with a "grain of salt," as my buddy AVET likes to say. One would think with the divine and infallible wisdom of God as your tool kit, that you could do this easily.

100% Split merge nonsense.

 

[FaithPrevails]

Maybe what I heard was wrong then. But maybe if someone had a real big baby, or some such, there could be tears with all the pressure.
Maybe just a good old fashioned bone through the nose might suffice?

I think there can be concerns about it stretching the skin of the piercing and having to worry about tears, but it probably depends on the belly button ring, with regards to gauge size.

And, I got a lot of compliments on the belly button piercing. I'm not so sure I would have been able to say the same about a bone through the nose.

 

[dad]

I think there can be concerns about it stretching the skin of the piercing and having to worry about tears, but it probably depends on the belly button ring, with regards to gauge size.

And, I got a lot of compliments on the belly button piercing. I'm not so sure I would have been able to say the same about a bone through the nose.

Yes, men like almost anything to do with a woman's belly. I am sure if it was sticking out with no piercings they would have enjoyed it also Heck, if someone drew a face on it with a magic marker, it would probably get comments..

 

[FaithPrevails]

lol

 

[Jazer]

C'mon, AVET... you guys have little interest in the "Truth."

What you and science calls "truth" changes more often then the weather. Like the weather if you do not like the current batch of "truth" that science has conjured up, just wait, it will change. The Bible has remained steadfast and consistent for 3500 years.

ecc 3 11 He has made every thing beautiful in his time: also he has set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God makes from the beginning to the end.

 

[sandwiches]

What you and science calls "truth" changes more often then the weather. Like the weather if you do not like the current batch of "truth" that science has conjured up, just wait, it will change.

Says the man on the internet. Our knowledge is becoming more and more accurate each day thanks to science! OH NOES! Someone stop science from changing!

The Bible has remained steadfast and consistent for 3500 years.

Steadfast as ever regarding slavery, incest, polygamy, murder, wars, gender equality, whether to charge interest for loans, what to wear, what to say, what to eat and drink. None of that has changed. No sir. Oh wait... it's our interpretation that's changed, amirite? Ah... So, the book never changes... because it's a book but what we think the book says has changed. Gotcha.

 

[Jazer]

Says the man on the internet. Our knowledge is becoming more and more accurate each day thanks to science! OH NOES! Someone stop science from changing!

What is changing is that more and more Science shows us that the Bible is true. If you trust in Science then you are without excuse for not accepting the truth in the Bible that Science verifies. Yet you turn your back on science when science tries to show you that the Bible is true.

Just like Noah knew that the flood was coming, we know that the tribulation and a nuclear cleansing is coming. The question is will you be taken by surprise or will you be prepared and ready? Japan was taken by surprise, even though they were prepared and ready. Haiti with it's thousand fires was taken by surprise. Will you be ready? Will you be prepared?

 

[SkyWriting]

You couldn't tell "actual science" from this:
http://alixoor.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/hole_in_the_wall3.jpg

I've been well paid for working in actual science for 20 some years.
Bp Corporation North America Inc - Naperville, Illinois (IL) | Company Profile

 

[Davian]

As it didn't happen, what are you doing here discussing it like it did?

BTW, I am also available to discuss details of Star Wars, Star Trek, Santa, and others.

Actually, I was under the impression that I was here discussing it like they didn't have belly buttons.

I was under the impression that you were here discussing Adam and Eve like they had actually existed.

Usually, those who don't dabble in the Truth, dabble in fiction.

As you have not provided evidence to the contrary, it appears that you are dabbling in fiction.

If you can discuss Star Wars, Star Trek, Santa, and others fluently, then what does that tell me?

I don't know. It might have been helpful to include that in your post.

 

[Jazer]

I've worked in actual science for 20 some years.
Bp Corporation North America Inc - Naperville, Illinois (IL) | Company Profile

So you work for the Iranian Oil Company?

 

[Jazer]

I was under the impression that you were here discussing Adam and Eve like they had actually existed.

They were real people. Just like Noah, Moses, Abraham were real people. We have evidence in the J Haplotype DNA & MtDNA.

 

[Davian]

I was under the impression that you were here discussing Adam and Eve like they had actually existed.

...

They were real people. Just like Noah, Moses, Abraham were real people. We have evidence in the J Haplotype DNA & MtDNA.

lol.

I don't think AV's belly-buttonless Adam and Eve fit into your diagram. He's not talking about real people. His diagram would have a cloud with "then a miracle occurs" written in it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Says the man on the internet. Our knowledge is becoming more and more accurate each day thanks to science! ....

Yet all that I have learn'd (hugh toyles now past)
By long experience, and in famous schooles,
Is but to know my ignorance at last.
Who think themselves most wise are greatest fools.

• William Alexander, Recreations with the Muses (1637), p. 7