Poll of the Day > Did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Checkmate, atheists
---

According to the riddle about how to recognize them upon meeting them in heaven, they do not.
Checkmate Otis Eugene Ray...?
---

I vaguely remember asking this in bible study and getting a "no".

pretty sure all the drawings show them having belly buttons
---

likehelly posted...

pretty sure all the drawings show them having belly buttons

Drawings didnt exist until the late 80s so theu are very likely highly inaccurate
---

Greenfox111 posted...

late 80s

Doesn't the Sistine Chapel have religious figures painted on its walls or something? And hasn't that been around for hundreds of years?
---

EclairReturns posted...

Greenfox111 posted...

late 80s

Doesn't the Sistine Chapel have religious figures painted on its walls or something? And hasn't that been around for hundreds of years?

Maybe he doesn't mean 1980-1989, but means 0080-0089 instead...
---

Yes, God gave them belly buttons to prevent racism from younger generations.
---

The correct answer is no belly buttons.

They weren't born in a womb. No umbilical cords. So no belly buttons.
---

>God is powerful enough to turn dust into a living human
>cant give a belly button without being created in a vomb
---

JCvgluvr posted...

The correct answer is no belly buttons.

They weren't born in a womb. No umbilical cords. So no belly buttons.

https://imgur.com/4VRBKxq

explain
---

pigs can't fly, and yet i can easily find a drawing of a pig with wings. explain that
---

No because they're children's story characters.
---

Greenfox111 posted...

pigs can't fly, and yet i can easily find a drawing of a pig with wings. explain that

It's just a little airborne. It's still good, it's still good!
---

helIy posted...

explain

you realise those aren't representative depictions of actual people right...
---

helIy posted...

JCvgluvr posted...

The correct answer is no belly buttons.

They weren't born in a womb. No umbilical cords. So no belly buttons.

https://imgur.com/4VRBKxq

explain

why does eve cry when she masturbates
---

EclairReturns posted...

Greenfox111 posted...

late 80s

Doesn't the Sistine Chapel have religious figures painted on its walls or something? And hasn't that been around for hundreds of years?

Do you not understand jokes, Eclair?
---

they didn't have them because they didn't exist
---

Obviously that's just 'cuz the models used to paint the characters had belly buttons.

I mean, it's not like if Superman had a mustache you just NOT draw it... right?
---

The story says that god made them in her image and she definitely had one because otherwise her midrif piercing just wouldn't look right.
---

Greenfox111 posted...

likehelly posted...

pretty sure all the drawings show them having belly buttons

Drawings didnt exist until the late 80s so theu are very likely highly inaccurate

I lold
---

helIy posted...

JCvgluvr posted...

The correct answer is no belly buttons.

They weren't born in a womb. No umbilical cords. So no belly buttons.

https://imgur.com/4VRBKxq

explain

Artistic license.
---

literally none of you posted the right answer yet try again
---

The bigger mystery is why men have nipples. Did God originally intend for both men and women to breastfeed?

If you look at the universe logically, any god that created it did so with rules and laws in mind. Things are created in that way for a reason. A god that would just change things willy nilly would have included magic etc where the laws could be circumvented etc.

This would logically lead one to believe that any god would then use the laws of science to create any creatures, not just do it from scratch. Therefore, humans, and "adam and eve" were more then likely created through natural means.

Quite likely this means that god may have created humans by using animals and imbuing said humans with a "soul". Most likely animal to be used, would be a ape of some kind (Damn dirty apes!!).

Therefore, i suggest that adam and eve were still born naturally, from monkeys, they were just the first homo-sapiens, or humans.

This means they would have actually had belly buttons as well.

In addition, it's quite likely that the apes they are descended from were vegetarians, eating only fruits and nuts. The "Apple" was actually meat.......which led to corruption by causing "humans" to want to hunt, develop weapons etc.

I don't personally believe any of that, but it at least makes some kind of logical sense.
---

rogerskg1979 posted...

The bigger mystery is why men have nipples. Did God originally intend for both men and women to breastfeed?

So Falker can milk them of course.
---

wolfy42 posted...

If you look at the universe logically, any god that created it did so with rules and laws in mind. Things are created in that way for a reason. A god that would just change things willy nilly would have included magic etc where the laws could be circumvented etc.

This would logically lead one to believe that any god would then use the laws of science to create any creatures, not just do it from scratch. Therefore, humans, and "adam and eve" were more then likely created through natural means.

Quite likely this means that god may have created humans by using animals and imbuing said humans with a "soul". Most likely animal to be used, would be a ape of some kind (Damn dirty apes!!).

Therefore, i suggest that adam and eve were still born naturally, from monkeys, they were just the first homo-sapiens, or humans.

This means they would have actually had belly buttons as well.

In addition, it's quite likely that the apes they are descended from were vegetarians, eating only fruits and nuts. The "Apple" was actually meat.......which led to corruption by causing "humans" to want to hunt, develop weapons etc.

I don't personally believe any of that, but it at least makes some kind of logical sense.

Now that's the kind of analysis I like to see.

wolfy42 posted...

Therefore, i suggest that adam and eve were still born naturally, from monkeys, they were just the first homo-sapiens, or humans.

That's not how evolution works.

wolfy42 posted...

I don't personally believe any of that, but it at least makes some kind of logical sense.

It makes no sense at all. It's an idiot's idea of how evolution works, the same idiots who ask why monkeys still exist if humans evolved from monkeys, because they have no clue what evolution actually is or means.

Also, if you say that animals/humans can't be created from scratch, then where exactly did the very first monkeys come from if there were no other monkeys to reproduce? It's the chicken or egg scenario. It's impossible to know which actually came first. Either way, the chicken or the egg, one of them had to have been created "from scratch."

the protozoa mutated!!
---

wolfy42 posted...

If you look at the universe logically, any god that created it did so with rules and laws in mind. Things are created in that way for a reason. A god that would just change things willy nilly would have included magic etc where the laws could be circumvented etc.

So you think God created the universe and established the rules that it would operate within, only to hinder himself with those same rules?

wolfy42 posted...

Quite likely this means that god may have created humans by using animals

Where then did those animals come from? God creates the universe and populates it with animals, but then for humans he limited himself to what was already available?
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Where then did those animals come from? God creates the universe and populates it with animals, but then for humans he limited himself to what was already available?

He wanted a challenge... I guess. Him challenging himself would probably also explain the platypus...
---

LinkPizza posted...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Where then did those animals come from? God creates the universe and populates it with animals, but then for humans he limited himself to what was already available?

He wanted a challenge... I guess. Him challenging himself would probably also explain the platypus...

This seems trivial in comparison to the preceding accomplishments.
---

Bah, all "evolution" is just a form of mutation and survival of creatures with the best traits.

Homo-sapiens just were smarter, and able to use tools better and therefore able to survive easier, in colder climates etc. Add in the ability to eat meat (more sources of food) and bam, you have a clear survival advantage.

As far as where animals came from etc, same as everything else it followed the rules of science. Everything followed logically based on the initial rules that were created.

There is no real debate over which came first the chicken or the egg, the egg came first (lizard eggs) and then eventually the lizards mutated into chickens. Slightly less chicken like lizards created eggs that were more and more like chickens until chickens existed.

Same would be true of humans for that matter, I doubt it was instant, but there are a variety of things you could pin the "apple" on. Using tools for instance, or even the use and control of fire, eating meat (and hunting animals), etc etc. A loss of innocence basically.

There is no point in creating a system, and then not using it. And yes, btw, I do in fact believe any god would limit itself, heck the whole basic point would probably be to do exactly that, as a form of entertainment.

We do that even as human beings, limit ourselves to enjoy things more, so it lasts longer or isn't too easy/boring.

My personal theory of the universe revolves around one sentient (and extremely bored) being splitting it's consciousness up among as many creatures as possible. I believe we are all basically god, just we do not have memories of other lives, the only way to prevent eternal boredom is to compartmentalize existence and forget, forget, forget.
---

wolfy42 posted...

There is no real debate over which came first the chicken or the egg, the egg came first (lizard eggs) and then eventually the lizards mutated into chickens.

But where did the very first lizard egg come from if there were no lizards to lay the egg? You said before that you can't create anything from scratch, but if there were no lizards to lay the first egg, then the first egg must have been created from scratch. If there was a lizard to lay the egg, then where did the very first lizard come from if it wasn't born from an egg? Then the lizard must have been created from scratch. Either way, whichever came first, the very first was created from scratch, and it's impossible to know which actually did come first. You can't say that there is no debate and that the egg definitively came first. You don't seem very good at critical thinking honestly.

rogerskg1979 posted...

if there were no lizards to lay the first egg, then the first egg must have been created from scratch.

The first true one was born without an egg, but laid one.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

rogerskg1979 posted...

if there were no lizards to lay the first egg, then the first egg must have been created from scratch.

The first true one was born without an egg, but laid one.

But how was the very first one just spontaneously born out of nothing? It would have basically been born "from scratch" and broke all the known rules of science.

The actual answer is that neither the chicken/lizard or egg came first. Life evolved from a single cell organism. But where the heck did that very first single cell organism come from? It had to have come "from scratch" if there wasn't any other living thing to give birth to it.

We will likely never really know exactly how life began and what caused it. It just seems to breaks the natural laws of science since the very first living thing would have essentially been born out of nothing.

Guys, this whole system thing isn't about limiting oneself, but it's about making things simpler. The same happens with computers. Programmers can create everything they want from scratch, but why the heck would they want to do that if it's easier to make it run on a system that they already made and it works? It's just way easier that way. That's the whole point of creating a system to begin with.

wolfy42 posted...

My personal theory of the universe revolves around one sentient (and extremely bored) being splitting it's consciousness up among as many creatures as possible. I believe we are all basically god, just we do not have memories of other lives, the only way to prevent eternal boredom is to compartmentalize existence and forget, forget, forget.

Overpopulation > apocalypse > BOOM > revert back to sentient?

What if the splits are all programmed to upload data to the sentient during sleep so that data loss need not be an option at the higher level?

huh? huh?
---