Did Adam Have a Navel?

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 ?

Nala

I like cake.

Capt'n Midnight

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

Google Ceationism Cain Able children or somesuch
They do have an answer
(for creationists the chicken came first )

If Adam had a navel then was it tied in a knot or not ?
Since none of them were baptised then from the viewpoint of some religions (Calvinism etc.) they God would have known that they wern't going to Heaven so he could have made Adam with a Navel (in Catholisism there is baptism by faith so that argument drops off there.)

Christ was born of Woman - so he had a navel and was devine so surly Adam could have one too without impacting on his perfect status ?

simu

Originally posted by 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 ?

That question would be more relevant to the Christianity forum.

Hip

I thought the story went like this...

Adam wasn't the first human, just the first born with an awareness of God. There were other people "east of Eden" which is where Cain went after murdering Abel.

Nala

Adam and Eve isn't even a real story!

watty

The first navel was where God poked to see if he was "done" yet?

Seriously though there are some principles on deciding how literally to take anything, like concept that God doesn't Lie, as a "reality" test.

But assuming (for a moment) a literial Adam and Eve, which oddly Science and Genetics doesn't rule out of court...

Did he have a Navel?

If he did not how or would it make him less human? I presume a navel could easy be removed by plastic surgery, or a second one added artifically.

If he did have a navel I don't see that that automatically implys a fake past or indeed anything else about anything.

There are actually two separate traditions / accounts of "creation" in Genesis.

The order of things happening doesn't conflict with anything we think we know.

The Hebrew word translated "day" is not "Yom", which does mean day, but a word that means "period of time".

The bible account has "man" appearing after the animals. "adam" in Hebrew can mean "mankind" or "earth". This results in Jewish English translation of Ezekiel the phrase "Son of Earth" or "Son of Man" is left as Ben Adam, unlike Christian English translations.

So "Adam" may not be a single man. That may be too literal a reading. The description of creation of Woman is puzzeling and hard to fathom in meaning though.

God creating all those "fossils" as such rather than the animals having lived and died simply conlficts with so much (all?) the Bible
"God is not a man that he should lie"

Creating a fake past is not said or suggested in Gensis, and such trickery / falsity would conflict with everything the Bible says about God, and indeed most people's and religions concepts of their god(s).
Other than characters like "Loki" who in all religions are closer to the place Judaism and Christianity have for the mightyest of all Angels, the Offical Accuser, who apparently got too big for his boots (read Book of Job for orignal conception of Satan).

Any biblical dating from "geneologies" is doomed because it is well known in oral tradition that only the important folk get mentioned. Also the number of generations in each geneology is very symbolic (There is a BIG difference between non-literal sybolism and lying/trickery/falsity).

Archilogical evidence finds little evidence of actual civilisations more than 10K or 12K years ago.

Seemingly men (and women) or proto-mankind lived for hundreds of thousands of years as hunter/gatherers and suddenly a short time ago we get towns (Even 15K years is a very short time ago).

So perhaps the story of Adam and Eve (they ate of the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil), is about the sudden transistion (in geological time frames) of transition in Sumaria or wherever from primitive hunter/gatherers to "civilisation" with its much greater capacity for excersice of Good & Evil.

A bit off topic to orignal question, but I think it has relevence to how we understand the question!

watty

Originally posted by neev
Adam and Eve isn't even a real story!

Of course it is a real story! It might not be a real History though. It's a much better story than man getting created out of some-ones armpit or whatever. Have you read many "creation myths" or stories? They are all "real" stories and all very interesting. Though most tell us more about the culture that they came from than any thing much about how mankind really arose.

uberwolf

Originally posted by ecksor
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.

It was either Popper or Kuhn (dreadful that I'm not sure which I know *though I think it was Popper) that described the following metaphor: Science is like a building built on a marsh, and that every time you wish to build upwards you must first drive the foundations down a little deeper, that is what you presume and take for granted extends always. However the foundation can not ever be shown to reach the truth because it is based on something that is ultimately unprovable.

On topic, is the original question a moot point if the church (which I believe it did) acknowledge that the story of creation was indeed no more than a metaphor?

watty

According to this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/999030.stm

"Adam" was born 59,000 years ago and ought to have had a navel, since Eve is 84,000 years older.

The article raises more questions than it anwers.

Only 15,000 years later in Europe:

Everyone in Europe is descended from just seven women.
Arriving at different times during the last 45,000 years, they survived wolves, bears and ice ages to form different clans that eventually became today's population.

These are the claims of Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University.

Calling them "The Seven Daughters of Eve", Professor Sykes has individually named them Ursula, Xenia, Tara, Helena, Katrine, Valda and Jasmine.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/719376.stm