Meron bang pusod si Adam and Eve?

[KeyserSoze]

Wala lang napag-isip-isip ko lang. Ano sa tingin nyo?

[uptowngirl]

hmmm... sa tingin ko wala kasi hindi sila born from the womb. diba kaya may pusod kasi dun dumadaan yung food ng mother to the baby?

[ruff]

i guess wala nga silang pusod if they really did exist, that is! yet isn't it interesting that all of us have the same first scar... our belly button! :)

[jepoy]

I asked my pastor about this a while back and he gave me a "no" without any hesitation.. i guess he's been asked the same question a lot of times before. :)

[PuNkChick]

di ko alam eh.. may picture ka ba? ;-)

[poponggo]

Meron, kung wala e di hindi nabuhay si Cain at Abel! Kaya nga may mga pusod tayo e.
At saka kung wala sinong unang nagka pusod?

Magisip-isip nga kayo!

[uptowngirl]

poponggo: hindi naman sa labas ng mother's womb naka-attach ang umbilical cord. Sa loob ng womb naka-attach yun, to the baby's navel! Kaya kung mabubuntis si Eve, yung baby lang niya ang may navel. Mag-isip ka rin! ;)

[*~AzY~*]

hehehe :)

cge, nag-isip na ko and i think nag-isip din si uptowngirl ;)

[Fortes in Fide]

May tamang answer ba? ;)

Sino ang makapagpapatunay? :)

[clawed_out]

di ba wala? kasi di naman sila iniluwal di ba?

poponggo: eh di yung panganay na anak nila adam & eve... unless na may kabit sa adam...at mas naunang magka anak kaysa kay eve!

[poponggo]

MAGISIP NAMAN KAYO! GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE, SO IBIG SABIHIN WALANG PUSOD AND DIYOS!?

UPTOWNGIRL: PANO MAGKAKARON NG UMBILICAL CORD ANG BABY KUNG WALANG PUSOD ANG NANAY NO!
MAGESEP-ESEP KA NGA!

ALAM NYO: NUNG KINAIN NI ADAM & EVE YUNG FORBIDDEN FRUIT, NAGTAGO SILA SA DIYOS, NAHIYA SILA DAHIL NALAMAN NILA NA HUBAD SILA. E BAKIT HINDI SILA NAHIYA AT NAGREKLAMO NUNG NALAMAN NILA NA WALA SILANG PUSOD NOH!!!!!!

KUNG HINDI PA RIN KAYO KUNTENTO SISIHIN NYO NA LANG SI KEYSERSOZE SA PAG OPEN NG TOPIC NA 'TO!

[blue babe]

poponggo: easy lang sa all caps... masakit sa mata...

sorry dude,but i hafta agree with uptown girl. may anak na ko. and alam ko, di sya nakakabit sa pusod ko. pusod ko, nakakabit sa womb ng mommy ko. pusod ng anak ko, nakakabit sa womb ko. bola ka naman eh... siguro feeling mo, parang outlet ang pusod, dun sinasaksak yung umbilical cord ng bata.. LOL!! ;)


PEACE!

[uptowngirl]

Poponggo: over ka naman mag-react! ginaya ko lang yung line mo..."Magisip-isip nga kayo!" yun lang yon no!

Saan ba nakaconnect ang pusod ng baby? hindi naman sa pusod ng nanay di ba? well, I'm not sure...let's just ask Doc Ira. ;)

[wAgKaNgMaKuLiT]

oo nga. meron ba?

[clone]

'Kulit..hi!
Look again.. mukhang si electrifying student ang katabi mo kaya nag on yun lights. :)

Anyway, back to the topic. I vote no.

[KeyserSoze]

Poponggo:
I have four things to say and here it is:

1) When God created Man in his own image and likeness, it didn't mean body parts. It means all of us have dignity. Now you ask the stupid question wether God has a navel or not!? My answer is this: No, God doesn't have a navel! How can you even speak of God in human terms??? Do you actually believe that God has a right hand, left hand, hair in His Holy armpits? You speak of God as if He is human when we all know that He is not. Maybe you still think that God is actually a MALE??? You speak of Him as if He is actually a human being! He is God.

2) How can you even think that the Navel of the woman who bears child is connected to the navel of the child? Isn't it obvious that it is not???

3) How on earth would Adam and eve know what a navel is??? Have the ever seen one? Of course not! So how can you complain about something that you didn't know was supposed to be there?

4) Hey this is a message board. So don't blame me for opening a thread. If you're mind is incapable of comprehending such philosophical inqueries then I would suggest for you not to try to sound smart.

[ParuParo]

Poponggo, picture this. Ang buntis ba eh may nakalawit sa labas ng tiyan niya na nakakabit sa pusod? Di ba wala? Ang baby, pagkapanganak, may cord ka na nakikita and this cord is, on one end, connected to the baby (thus the pusod) and the other end, nakakabit sa placenta, which "pinapanganak" din a few minutes after the baby. Pagkalabas ng placenta, tapos ang panganganak mo. Look at maternity books...I'm sure may picture doon, kasi you can't seem to understand uptowngirl's explanation. If ever manganganak ako, walang kinalaman ang pusod ko sa baby ko. Gets?

[poponggo]

alam nyo mga babes, i'm not trying to be smart.

yung explanation nyo kasi, scientific, sakin hinde, ewan ko kung anong tawag don.

thaks for the information ha, pero i still believe na si adam & eve may pusod.

alam nyo malapit nyo na akong mapaniwala eh. pero ayaw ko pa rin, nakakaasar naman o, basta ako dun ako sa may pusod si adam&eve kahit na marami pa kayong nagsasabi na wala. peace tayong lahat okay!

ang galing nyo mag-explain, may natutunan ako.

maniniwala lang ako na walang pusod si adam&eve kapag nakita ko sila na walang pusod o di kaya sinabi sakin ng diyos na wala silang pusod okay ba yon? :)

ADA: ang galing ni keysersoze! ang ganda ng topic! :)

[ParuParo]

Poponggo: The explanation was not to prove to you na may pusod or walang pusod si Adam and Eve. It was merely to explain to you the purpose and origin of the pusod...I'm glad naliwanagan ka though...
Blue babe... "outlet" ? he-he-he...I really laughed out loud when I read your post! Can you imagine kung ganon nga? :) Tipong may voltage pa...

[wAgKaNgMaKuLiT]

...away na...

[Mikki]

Sa palagay ko tama din si Poponggo kung si Adam and Eve ay isang kagaya nya na electrified. Di kailangan me saksakan ng kuryente sa labas.

Pero kung ordinaryong tao sila, syempre walang pusod dahil hindi naman sila sinilang.

Ang sinasabing image of God ay ang ispiritu natin at hindi ang katawang tao.

[clawed_out]

*sama kay wagnamakulit, nakikinood, sige sino kaya mag uumpisa*

basta ako sa wala

kayo? sa meron sa wala?

[ParuParo]

Sorry to dissapoint you Wagkangmakulit but you can wait and wait at wala ka pa ring mawiwitness na away. Sheesh! I'm sure Poponggo isn't the type who engages in a useless word war...over a trivial matter pa. Right Poponggo? Buti pa, punta na lang kayo sa kabila...UAAP and Games ba yon? You might find what you're looking for doon.
*pinatayan ng ilaw si Wagkangmakulit and clawed_out*

[This message has been edited by ParuParo (edited 01-21-2000).]

[wAgKaNgMaKuLiT]

*ni on yun lights*
*tabi kay clawed_out*

:)

[KeyserSoze]

Poponggo: The explanation wasn't intended to make you believe that Adam and Eve didn't have a navel. I'm not sure din. Now I vote yes, just for the sake of having a prototype.

Poponggo, peace man.

[poponggo]

Once again the most electrifying PEXer has come back!!!! *grand entrance*

Thanks ParuParo :)

Peace tayo Keysersoze :)

Wagkangmakulit : wagkangmakulit ayaw ko ng away, peace tayo, gusto kong maging moderator eh.

[ta_nga]

ewan kung na-post na...
ang topic na to dito...
bago lang kasi ako...

kung na-post na...
paki-guide na lang po...
kung saang banda yon...

kung wala pa...
ano po ba...
ang opinion ninyo...
kasi di ba?...
di naman sila pinanganak...
kaya dapat...
ala silang pusod...
:rolleyes:

ano sa tingin nyo?...

kakainis...
para tuloy akong ta_nga!!!

[abuGian]

malamang wala

[sadirmata]

siyempre wala kasi sila ay nilalang mismo ng Diyos, hindi isinilang mula sa isang ina o nanggaling sa matris ng ina... kaya lang naman nagkakaroon ng pusod ay dahil doon sa umbilical cord na nakakabit sa womb ng ina. pagkasilang ng bata, puputulin yung cord na yun kaya nagkakaroon ng pilat o pusod na nga...

[kartoonista]

Yup, I also read somewhere that they didn't have navels. Which made all the more interesting the story of the Creation when their children ask about it. :D

[PiNKSHiT]

uy ta_nga
bulok na yang joke na yan ha!
pero atleast may sense
:bash:
ako naman may question para sayo:
kumakain ka ba ng balut?
kung oo
sinisipsip mo ba ang sabaw nito?
kung oo
alam mo ba kung ano yung hinihigop mo?
kung hindi
ilagay mo ang sarili mo sa lugar ng sisiw
nakakulong ka sa isang shell
madilim
wala kang kasama
wala kang kausap
SAAN KA IIHI?!
:revomit:
hahaha!

[deng2001]

...and eve, too. did they have a 'pusod?' hmmm...ano kaya ano?

[Tharaki]

dagdag tanong lang? me silbi pa ba ang pusod pag naipanganak na ang tao?

[name]

i've read in an article once that paintings of adam and eve having belly buttons were wrong (raw) because they didn't have one.

but i guess we'll never really know. :shrug:

[okihcim]

in my opinion, it's possible that the first recognizable humans had a navel. but then again, i believe in evolution. for me, it's just a question of when the navel start to form and if it was prior to the time of the first humans.

if you believe in Creation, then it is impossible for them to have a navel since they were not conceived. and anyway, i believe that when the bible says that we are formed in the image and likeness of God, it just means that we are spiritual beings, not necessarily his look-alike.

but then, nobody can really be sure...

[CollegeKid]

meron!

[bowen21]

i don't think they have...

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/bellybutton.html

[marlo_kalbo]

Genetics would prove that they had bellybuttons if they existed.

-kalbo

[Altariel]

most likely, wala.. :D

[caporegime]

Lahat ng bagay may pusod. Toy soldiers may pusod (sa likod at ilalim), lahat ng plastic items may pusod (caused by the injection port of the mold)... & yung engine block ng makina ng tsekot may pusod din... lahat ng cast items may pusod... yung radial tire lang ang daming pusod nyan... :D

[seeker_right]

Originally posted by poponggo
MAGISIP NAMAN KAYO! GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE, SO IBIG SABIHIN WALANG PUSOD AND DIYOS!?

UPTOWNGIRL: PANO MAGKAKARON NG UMBILICAL CORD ANG BABY KUNG WALANG PUSOD ANG NANAY NO!
MAGESEP-ESEP KA NGA!

ALAM NYO: NUNG KINAIN NI ADAM & EVE YUNG FORBIDDEN FRUIT, NAGTAGO SILA SA DIYOS, NAHIYA SILA DAHIL NALAMAN NILA NA HUBAD SILA. E BAKIT HINDI SILA NAHIYA AT NAGREKLAMO NUNG NALAMAN NILA NA WALA SILANG PUSOD NOH!!!!!!

KUNG HINDI PA RIN KAYO KUNTENTO SISIHIN NYO NA LANG SI KEYSERSOZE SA PAG OPEN NG TOPIC NA 'TO!

Tama na walang pusod sila Adam and Eve. Ang mga nagkakapusod lang ay ang mga lumabas sa sinapupunan ng ina nila dahil ang umbilical cord ang sumusuporta sa buhay nila habang nasa tiyan ng kanilang ina.

Since Adam and Eve didn't go through the conventional reproductive process but were spawned spontaneously by God (creationist account), then an umbilical cord is unnecessary because they didn't even become a fetus (or even an infant?). Therefore, logic would tell you that they didn't have an umbilical cord.

Walang pusod si Adam and Eve at si poponggo naman ay walang isip. :lol:

[marlo_kalbo]

Then sana ala na ring pusod yung mga anak nila. Common sense lang noh! Saan naman manggagaling yung pusod kung wala sa genes nila yun.

-kalbo

[seeker_right]

Magbasa basa ka nga muna bago mag post ng ka-ignorantehan.

http://blueprint.bluecrossmn.com/topic/mnbellybutton

Q: Does the belly button have a purpose?

A: Not much of one unless you count the recent fashion trend of decorating it with various accessories! But when you were a developing baby prior to birth, it was the spot where you were joined to your mom. During fetal development, mother and baby are attached by a system of blood vessels that connects the mother's placenta to the baby's abdomen. These vessels enable the blood supply from the placenta to circulate into the baby's heart and body, providing vital nutrients and oxygen.

Waste products and carbon dioxide then exit through the baby's abdominal blood vessels, and re-enter the mom's bloodstream. Mom's system "cleans" and oxygenates the blood, and sends it back to the baby. This all works relatively simply up until the time of delivery. Then there's a very delicate but rapid transition of life support from the mother to her child, which means baby is now a free-living human being, able to eat and breathe for himself.

When the baby is delivered, a doctor or nurse clamps the umbilical cord in two places, and then cuts the cord between the clamps. Once the umbilical cord is clamped and cut, it is no longer necessary. The end that is attached to the baby forms a small stump, which eventually dries up and falls off a couple of weeks after birth. Over the following 10 days or so, the newborn's abdominal opening heals into a nice little belly button.

You may also wonder what makes one belly button an "inny" and another an "outy," but I was not able to find any clear explanation of the difference between the two types. It shall, perhaps, remain one of life's greatest mysteries! But it's also the permanent vestige of the wonderful bond between mother and baby, and should serve as a reminder of our connections in life.

**************

Wala namang nanay sila Adam and Eve eh so they didn't go through the phase of fetal development. The belly button would have no purpose for them then, but it does for their offspring.

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by seeker_right
Magbasa basa ka nga muna bago mag post ng ka-ignorantehan.



Are you referring to me or are you referring to yourself?

How the hell can you explain bellybuttons springing out from Adam's and Eve's offsprings, granting that they did exist, if it weren't part of Adam's and Eve's genetic make-up?

Just because Adam and Eve would have no reason for themselves to have bellybuttons, if really bellybuttons have no purpose other than the fact that it facilitates fetal nutrition, does that mean they wouldn't have them?

Biblical reasoning:
Pardon me but the forbidden fruit was not meant for Adam and Eve to be eaten but the tree of that forbidden fruit was in the garden of Eden. Just because it cannot be eaten does it mean that God wouldn't have placed the tree there? Of course not. (Granting that everything that was written about the garden of Eden were true, by the way)

Scientific reasoning:
Granting again that evolution is true and that human fetal development is patterned after the evolution of humans, just because tails have no necessity for humans does that mean that we don't have them (they grow during the early stages of fetal development and then shrink later on) does that mean that we won't have any tails growing during fetal development?

Geez.

-kalbo

[rey_pinioco]

Marlo, yung pusod eh after effect ng pagputol ng umbilical cord.

Pinutol ba yung umbilical cord nina Adam and Eve? May umbilical cord ba sila?

[seeker_right]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo


Are you referring to me or are you referring to yourself?

How the hell can you explain bellybuttons springing out from Adam's and Eve's offsprings, granting that they did exist, if it weren't part of Adam's and Eve's genetic make-up?

Just because Adam and Eve would have no reason for themselves to have bellybuttons, if really bellybuttons have no purpose other than the fact that it facilitates fetal nutrition, does that mean they wouldn't have them?

Biblical reasoning:
Pardon me but the forbidden fruit was not meant for Adam and Eve to be eaten but the tree of that forbidden fruit was in the garden of Eden. Just because it cannot be eaten does it mean that God wouldn't have placed the tree there? Of course not. (Granting that everything that was written about the garden of Eden were true, by the way)

Scientific reasoning:
Granting again that evolution is true and that human fetal development is patterned after the evolution of humans, just because tails have no necessity for humans does that mean that we don't have them (they grow during the early stages of fetal development and then shrink later on) does that mean that we won't have any tails growing during fetal development?

Geez.

-kalbo

*let's talk in the context of the creationist account although I don't exactly believe it... but what the heck*

The difference between Adam and Eve and the rest of mankind lies in their uniqueness in being the first human beings. Having an umbilical cord will be in their genetic program of course, but it wouldn't apply to them because they were never in a womb and belly buttons DON'T HAVE A PURPOSE for people outside a womb so logically, they can exist without it and spawn offsprings that do.

The tree of life was placed there to "test" Adam and Eve so there you go with the purpose. :rolleyes:

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by seeker_right

The difference between Adam and Eve and the rest of mankind lies in their uniqueness in being the first human beings. Having an umbilical cord will be in their genetic program of course, but it wouldn't apply to them because they were never in a womb and belly buttons DON'T HAVE A PURPOSE for people outside a womb so logically, they can exist without it and spawn offsprings that do.


Iniwasan mo yung sa biology e. Ano nga ang purpose ng buntot sa tao?

Anyway, how are you sure that bellybuttons have no purpose aside from being connections to umbilical cords? E di sana after being cut from umbilical cords, bellybuttons should begin to disappear since ala na silang purpose, DI BA?


The tree of life was placed there to "test" Adam and Eve so there you go with the purpose. :rolleyes:

That is another topic, but here is a glimpse of what I have in mind.

To test Adam?
Gen 3:3
[3] but God said, `You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"

God forbade Adam from eating from it. Is He testing Adam?

In the same manner, God said, "thou shalt not kill", is that testing Moses and the rest of the Israelites?

An example of God testing a human is this:

Gen.22
[1] After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I."
[2] He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

In other words, God ordered a human to do something, not the other way around.

-kalbo

[marlo_kalbo]

Belly button pala.

-kalbo

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by rey_pinioco
Marlo, yung pusod eh after effect ng pagputol ng umbilical cord.

Pinutol ba yung umbilical cord nina Adam and Eve? May umbilical cord ba sila?

:)

Alang umbilical cord. Alang pinutol. Pero merong part na nagfafacilitate ng nutrition kung naging fetus man si Adam dahil kung hindi, walang magiging ganoon sa mga anak ni Adam at ni Eve.

-kalbo

[rey_pinioco]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo


:)

Alang umbilical cord. Alang pinutol. Pero merong part na nagfafacilitate ng nutrition kung naging fetus man si Adam dahil kung hindi, walang magiging ganoon sa mga anak ni Adam at ni Eve.

-kalbo

Kaya nga! Since walang cord, walang pusod! Hindi ko tinatanong kung yung anak niya e meron o wala.

[marlo_kalbo]

Paano nga lalabas sa mga anak nila iyon?

-kalbo

[little_witch]

:glee: the thought of debating over adam and eve's navel (the presence/absence thereof) is so funny! never did the question ever enter my mind.

[caporegime]

Seriously (kunyari lang :D), I think meron. I believe na yung placenta yung ancestor nina adam & eve...

[rey_pinioco]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo
Paano nga lalabas sa mga anak nila iyon?

-kalbo

Kulit mo talaga chief! May mangyayari sa mga anak ni A&E na hindi nila mararanasan: ipapanganak sila. Ikaw na nagsabi na wala silang umbilical cord, so paano magkakaroon ng pusod. Infer ko lang na di nagka baby teeth or nag puberty si A&E, so ibig sabihin ba noon eh anak din nila e hindi?

Nagkaka peklat ang tao dahil sa sugat. Ang isang tao na hindi nasusugatan ay di magkakapeklat. Ang taong hindi pinanganak ay hindi magkakapusod dahil hindi sya nagkaroon ng umbilical cord.

[QueTePasa]

When I first read the title of the thread, I thought it was really funny.
But while I thought that the thread starter was quite perceptive, I also decided almost automatically that the answer was "no, Adam did not have navels."

When I decided this, I was thinking along the lines of the navel being a scar and that scars are not genetic.
With that in mind, I shook my head at the answers of those who said that Adam and Eve had navels.

I mentioned this thread to a friend (as an example of the silliness that can sometimes be found on PEx).

But what she said was quite interesting. She said, "yes, they did". I asked why and she gave the "genetic" reason. How could Cain and Abel have had navels if Adam and Eve didn't, she said.

When I explained that our navels were the remains of our umbilical cords, she stunned me when she gave the following clarification.

"The fact remains that Cain and Abel are 'copies' of Adam and Eve -- as we all are. Now, if we have navels then Adam and Eve must have had navels. In all likelihood, they did not have belly buttons that resemble what we have now. Chances are, their umbilical cords were still intact... like tails protruding out of the stomach."

Now, this idea seems gross to me. But it makes sense.

[marlo_kalbo]

Rey_pinioco wrote:
...Ikaw na nagsabi na wala silang umbilical cord, so paano magkakaroon ng pusod. Infer ko lang na di nagka baby teeth or nag puberty si A&E, so ibig sabihin ba noon eh anak din nila e hindi? ..


Your argument is too weak my friend.

Just think about it. When Adam was created did he have any skeletal muscle development? Did he have psychomotor development? Did he have puberty? Did he have mental development? No, because he was created as a full grown adult.

Therefore, following your conclusion that Adam couldn't have had a belly button because he didn't have an umbilical cord cut off from his navel, then we would have the following utterly preposterous conclusions:

1. Adam had full grown permanent teeth grown within his gums because his gums never ruptured.
2. Adam couldn't lift anything, nor could his skeletal muscles support his bodyweight.
3. Adam had at most the intellect of a newborn.
4. Adam doesn't have an Adam's apple.
5. Adam's testicles do not produce sperm cells.
6. There is no gametogenesis in Adam.

Now except for the Adam's apple, I can sight verses in the Bible to prove that these are indeed wrong.

Therefore, Adam was created as though all the developmental processes happened to Adam, and this includes having a belly button.

-kalbo

[duke_darius]

Hi guys, may I join your lively discussion?
:)

I cannot help but be amused by the arguments for and against the navel thing. But to remind you guys, there was really no Adam and Eve. These are only figures of the story that intends to tell us about God and human relationship.

The stories of creation in the bible do not intend to answer the question of process on how the world really began. Instead it tries to answer why there is anything at all, i.e., it tries to answer the question of meaning and again never the process-- which is the concern of science. And so we have the Big Bang and the Evolution theories. Which by the way are already accepted by the Catholic Church.

Gone were the days when the Bible or as we say the creationist theory is pitted against the theories of science. They are not of the same level because they are trying to answer different questions. The bible on WHY there is creation? and science on HOW things began?

On the question of why- the authors of the bible intend to say that things do not happen by chance. We exist because there is a God who planned our existence. That our existence has a source, and if it has a source then it has and end or a goal. Otherwise, if nobody planned our existence, life would not have any meaning at all. Since we will only become accidents of nature or freaks of nature. It so happened only that the earth is not close enough or far enough from the sun that the condition here are conducive to developing life. But as it is we believe that we are not mere accidents. That life has a purpose, though we constantly have to grapple what it is. Why else do we have to be good and avoid evil. Why else do we find virtue in all that is good, though we do not practice them most of the time?

Science on the other hand tries to answer on the real process on how things began. Good. so we understand and appreciate nature more. But never can science give us the answer on the question of the meaning of life.

So there guys, Adam and Eve did not have navels for they did not exist in flesh and blood the first place. They are THE symbolic representations of early men and women. :cool: :cool: :cool:

[duke_darius]

correction lang,

conditions are.. ;)

[seeker_right]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo
Iniwasan mo yung sa biology e. Ano nga ang purpose ng buntot sa tao?



Eh out of context ang Biology dito kasi nag uusap tayo about theological characters such as Adam and Eve. Walang buntot ang tao at kahit sa Biology hindi proven na ang protrusion sa fetus ay buntot.



Anyway, how are you sure that bellybuttons have no purpose aside from being connections to umbilical cords? E di sana after being cut from umbilical cords, bellybuttons should begin to disappear since ala na silang purpose, DI BA?

Well, kapag tinuli ka would your skin grow back? The umbilical cord was a part of the body that took up a large portion of the stomach's surface and transcended all skin layers. Kung magkaroon ka ng tama ng bala, or saksak na tumagos sa lahat ng skin layers, it would leave a permanent mark, eh umbilical cord pa kaya? Wala talagang purpose ang belly buttons. Marunong ka pa sa Biologist at Duktor.

As I said, I don't believe in the Creation Account, but logic tells me that the first human beings, if indeed spawned from dust and became a full grown man/woman wouldn't have a "mark" that they once were supported thru an umbilical cord in a womb because they never were.

[seeker_right]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo
Iniwasan mo yung sa biology e. Ano nga ang purpose ng buntot sa tao?



Eh out of context ang Biology dito kasi nag uusap tayo about theological characters such as Adam and Eve. Walang buntot ang tao at kahit sa Biology hindi proven na ang protrusion sa fetus ay buntot.



Anyway, how are you sure that bellybuttons have no purpose aside from being connections to umbilical cords? E di sana after being cut from umbilical cords, bellybuttons should begin to disappear since ala na silang purpose, DI BA?

Well, kapag tinuli ka would your skin grow back? The umbilical cord was a part of the body that took up a large portion of the stomach's surface and transcended all skin layers. Kung magkaroon ka ng tama ng bala, or saksak na tumagos sa lahat ng skin layers, it would leave a permanent mark, eh umbilical cord pa kaya? Wala talagang purpose ang belly buttons. Marunong ka pa sa Biologist at Duktor.

As I said, I don't believe in the Creation Account, but logic tells me that the first human beings, if indeed spawned from dust and became a full grown man/woman wouldn't have a "mark" that they once were supported thru an umbilical cord in a womb because they never were.

[seeker_right]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo
Iniwasan mo yung sa biology e. Ano nga ang purpose ng buntot sa tao?



Eh out of context ang Biology dito kasi nag uusap tayo about theological characters such as Adam and Eve. Walang buntot ang tao at kahit sa Biology hindi proven na ang protrusion sa fetus ay buntot.



Anyway, how are you sure that bellybuttons have no purpose aside from being connections to umbilical cords? E di sana after being cut from umbilical cords, bellybuttons should begin to disappear since ala na silang purpose, DI BA?

Well, kapag tinuli ka would your skin grow back? The umbilical cord was a part of the body that took up a large portion of the stomach's surface and transcended all skin layers. Kung magkaroon ka ng tama ng bala, or saksak na tumagos sa lahat ng skin layers, it would leave a permanent mark, eh umbilical cord pa kaya? Wala talagang purpose ang belly buttons. Marunong ka pa sa Biologist at Duktor.

As I said, I don't believe in the Creation Account, but logic tells me that the first human beings, if indeed spawned from dust and became a full grown man/woman wouldn't have a "mark" that they once were supported thru an umbilical cord in a womb because they never were.

[rey_pinioco]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo


Your argument is too weak my friend.

Just think about it. When Adam was created did he have any skeletal muscle development? Did he have psychomotor development? Did he have puberty? Did he have mental development? No, because he was created as a full grown adult.

Therefore, following your conclusion that Adam couldn't have had a belly button because he didn't have an umbilical cord cut off from his navel, then we would have the following utterly preposterous conclusions:

1. Adam had full grown permanent teeth grown within his gums because his gums never ruptured.
2. Adam couldn't lift anything, nor could his skeletal muscles support his bodyweight.
3. Adam had at most the intellect of a newborn.
4. Adam doesn't have an Adam's apple.
5. Adam's testicles do not produce sperm cells.
6. There is no gametogenesis in Adam.

Now except for the Adam's apple, I can sight verses in the Bible to prove that these are indeed wrong.

Therefore, Adam was created as though all the developmental processes happened to Adam, and this includes having a belly button.

-kalbo

So did Adam get an umbilical cord and was it cut off?

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by duke_darius

... Which by the way are already accepted by the Catholic Church. ...



Catholic belief does not represent the numberous beliefs of different Bible believers.

Even Catholic's belief contradicts itself.

-kalbo

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by seeker_right

Eh out of context ang Biology dito kasi nag uusap tayo about theological characters such as Adam and Eve. Walang buntot ang tao at kahit sa Biology hindi proven na ang protrusion sa fetus ay buntot.



Out of context ba e bakit nung sinabihan mong me ka ignorantehan ako e link sa Biology ang pinost mo? Di ka lang pala mapanirang-puri manloloko ka pa!

Walang buntot ang tao? So wala kang cervix? At di pala tao lahat ng me cervix?



Well, kapag tinuli ka would your skin grow back? The umbilical cord was a part of the body that took up a large portion of the stomach's surface and transcended all skin layers. Kung magkaroon ka ng tama ng bala, or saksak na tumagos sa lahat ng skin layers, it would leave a permanent mark, eh umbilical cord pa kaya? Wala talagang purpose ang belly buttons. Marunong ka pa sa Biologist at Duktor.



:) Di ko sinasabing wala at di ko rin sinasabing meron. Di kasi ako nagmamarunong katulad ng ibang Duktor e, at di rin ako nagmamarunong katulad mo.

http://associate.com/ministry_files/The_Reading_Room/Evolution_n_Creation_2/The_Human_Appendix.shtml



As I said, I don't believe in the Creation Account, but logic tells me that the first human beings, if indeed spawned from dust and became a full grown man/woman wouldn't have a "mark" that they once were supported thru an umbilical cord in a womb because they never were.

Please read my reply to Rey_pinioco's post. I don't want to be redundant.

-kalbo

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by rey_pinioco


So did Adam get an umbilical cord and was it cut off?

Again walang umbilical cord, pero may belly button as if meron ngang naputol dati. Otherwise, hindi pinuputol ang umbilical cords mula sa navels ng mga tao.

-kalbo

[rey_pinioco]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo


Again walang umbilical cord, pero may belly button as if meron ngang naputol dati. Otherwise, hindi pinuputol ang umbilical cords mula sa navels ng mga tao.

-kalbo

HUH?!? So parang pinalabas na pinutol yung umbilical cord nya? Ehh???

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by rey_pinioco


HUH?!? So parang pinalabas na pinutol yung umbilical cord nya? Ehh???

Yup, what is wrong with that?

Apply mo sa iba.

Parang pinalabas na nagrupture na yung gums.
Parang pinalabas na naglalakad at gumagalaw na si Adam.
Parang nagpuberty na si Adam.

etc...

-kalbo

[rey_pinioco]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo


Yup, what is wrong with that?

It shows that whoever made Adam is deceitful :D

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by rey_pinioco


It shows that whoever made Adam is deceitful :D

Bakit naman?

Everything that was necessary was given to Adam, and I do not find that deceitful.

With the previous line of reasoning, we could infer that Adam had type AB blood, had all the necessary antibodies, and RH+.

-kalbo

[rey_pinioco]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo


Bakit naman?

Everything that was necessary was given to Adam, and I do not find that deceitful.

With the previous line of reasoning, we could infer that Adam had type AB blood, had all the necessary antibodies, and RH+.

-kalbo

Huh? Pinalabas nya na pinanganak si Adam, na hindi naman nangyari. On a similar note, may tree rings ba yung mga puno sa garden?

[Ischaramoochie]

ayayai! this thread us swiftly turning into nonsense...

[seeker_right]

A "belly button" is a permanent scar. If Adam and eve were never scarred in their stomachs, it would be plain and smooth continuous skin.

If they had belly buttons, would it look rippled and ruptured inside? Or would it just be a depression with smooth unruptured skin covering the pit?

Isipin niyo. So I still stand by the logic that if there was no reason to scar such as a necessary puncture to facilitate nutrition during the fetal stage of development such as an umbilical cord, there would be none because according to the creation account, Adam and Eve were created to be full grown human beings.

Using the logic of Eli Soriano: "Saan mo ba nababasa sa Bibliya na may pusod si Adam and Eve? Kung wala... eh napakabobomonaman. :glee:"

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by rey_pinioco


Huh? Pinalabas nya na pinanganak si Adam, na hindi naman nangyari. On a similar note, may tree rings ba yung mga puno sa garden?

Syempre.

-kalbo

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by seeker_right

Using the logic of Eli Soriano: "Saan mo ba nababasa sa Bibliya na may pusod si Adam and Eve? Kung wala... eh napakabobomonaman. :glee:"

Eli Soriano fanatic...

Follow the arguments presented above.

If Adam never had puberty, then Adam couldn't have produced sperm cells.

If Adam never had any movement prior to his creation, then his muscles never developed.

Etc, etc...

-kalbo

[duke_darius]

quote:

Marlo_kalbo

The Catholic Church has the official interpretation of the Catholic believers. Even if you a Catholic would dissent to what the Catholic Church teaches, your opinion will always remain an opinion and will never be official. In the same way that you may have an opinion about evolution but that will remain your personal opinion and will never be the official stand of the scientific community whose conclusions the edcucated world accepts.

This thread in my opinion is becoming absurd.

So much ado about nonesense. The navel at the moment does not have any relevant function aside from a arousing some libido among men and women. They might discover some its use in the future but there's NONE today.

And so much ado about ADAM & EVE who DID NOT EXIST in the first place.

..and this is the thread of philosophers and thinkers. or are you guys from la salle?
:mad:


PEACE:D :D :D

[rey_pinioco]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo


Syempre.

-kalbo


Nah. Following that logic, trees today with lots of rings would only be a few days old ... and the universe was probably created last Thursday, it was just made to look old.

Ang dami talagang problema ng "Omphalos" argument :D

[seeker_right]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo


Eli Soriano fanatic...

Follow the arguments presented above.

If Adam never had puberty, then Adam couldn't have produced sperm cells.

If Adam never had any movement prior to his creation, then his muscles never developed.

Etc, etc...

-kalbo

Hay nako, hindi ka maka-analyze. Well, sorry, hindi kita matutulungan. Kailangan mo mag aral pa. Responsibilidad mo na yun at hindi sa akin :glee: Alien! Mabuhay si Soriano!:glee:

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by duke_darius


Marlo_kalbo

The Catholic Church has the official interpretation of the Catholic believers.



Yes. Precisely. Catholic. What is being talked about here is Adam and Eve, and not the ever changing Catholic dogma.


Even if you a Catholic would dissent to what the Catholic Church teaches,


Whoever gave you the idea that I am a Catholic? Go shove your religion to other people, but don't you shove it to me.


your opinion will always remain an opinion and will never be official.


So long as my opinion wouldn't follow your inconsistent dogmas, I'll be happy to have an unofficial opinion.


In the same way that you may have an opinion about evolution but that will remain your personal opinion and will never be the official stand of the scientific community whose conclusions the edcucated world accepts.


I never posted my opinion about evolution here. Where do you get your ideas?


This thread in my opinion is becoming absurd.


You are entitled to your opinion.


So much ado about nonesense. The navel at the moment does not have any relevant function aside from a arousing some libido among men and women. They might discover some its use in the future but there's NONE today.


So? What is your point?


..and this is the thread of philosophers and thinkers. or are you guys from la salle?
:mad:


Yes I am from DLSU.

Yuhoo! Paging Kartoonista! Pwede ba yung ganyang mga comments?


PEACE:D :D :D

If your peace is peace with insults then don't give it to me.

-kalbo

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by seeker_right


Hay nako, hindi ka maka-analyze. Well, sorry, hindi kita matutulungan. Kailangan mo mag aral pa. Responsibilidad mo na yun at hindi sa akin :glee: Alien! Mabuhay si Soriano!:glee:

Hindi ako maka-analyze? O ikaw?

Bakit pilit mong iniiwasan yung tungkol sa ibang parte? Bakit kayang buhatin ni Adam (I can sight verses) ang sarili nya kung hindi naman sya nagkaroon ng pagkakataong gumalaw bago siya nilikha?

Bakit ang ngipin ni Adam ay nakalabas (I can sight a verse again) na gayong hindi naman nabutas ang gilagid nya at hindi naman tumubo ang kanyang mga ngipin dahil nang nilikha siya e kumpleto na sya?

-kalbo

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by rey_pinioco



Nah. Following that logic, trees today with lots of rings would only be a few days old ... and the universe was probably created last Thursday, it was just made to look old.

Ang dami talagang problema ng "Omphalos" argument :D

Then following your reasoning, a human grows from a fertilized egg to a full-grown adult within a matter of microseconds.

Please! Could you give me a better argument?

-kalbo

[rey_pinioco]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo


Then following your reasoning, a human grows from a fertilized egg to a full-grown adult within a matter of microseconds.

Please! Could you give me a better argument?

-kalbo

Eh? Marlo_Kalbo = malabo talaga. Ikaw yung may weak arguments.

Logic follows that a person, being born, would naturally have umbilical cords, which would've been removed, which leads to the belly button.

Adam, which you claim to be created, would therefore not have a belly button, since he was created, not born.

IMO, if a human was indeed created, he would not have a belly button. This would identify his status as being created, since we cannot say that he was born and therefore must have come into existence via other means.

You say that Adam was created with a belly button. I argued that if so, then it is there to deceive (ie give the appearance of being born). Who's to argue that I, despite having a navel, wasn't really born and created fully formed. In reverse, we could say that since Adam had a navel, he was probably born and not created.

Same situation for trees. We can know a tree's age by looking at its rings. Thus we know when the tree came to life. Now how could we distinguish a normal tree from a "created" tree with rings? We cannot. If so, I argue that everything we see now was created just last Thursday, created with the appearance that it has existed longer than that.

My conclusion: If Adam indeed had a navel, then his creator was malicious, intending to deceive, since an "honest" creator would do otherwise.

[marlo_kalbo]

Paulit-ulit na lang ako.

If I would accept that the implication that 'if Adam was created then he wouldn't have a belly button' is true, then I must accept the other implications, like 'Adam's muscles can't support his bodyweight'.

Other implications from your reasoning:
After a few days of Adam's creation, Adam would have died from disease since his body never formed any antibodies nor had any antibodies nourished into him by a mother.

Pinipilit mo na kelangang me physical cause para sa belly button samantalang creation naman ito at divine forces ang nag-aact sa creation.

Gets mo ba?

-kalbo

[rey_pinioco]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo
Paulit-ulit na lang ako.

If I would accept that the implication that 'if Adam was created then he wouldn't have a belly button' is true, then I must accept the other implications, like 'Adam's muscles can't support his bodyweight'.

Other implications from your reasoning:
After a few days of Adam's creation, Adam would have died from disease since his body never formed any antibodies nor had any antibodies nourished into him by a mother.

Aba problema mo yan ... akala ko ba walang namamatay noon?

In-argue mo na na binigay na ke Adam lahat ng kailangan nya. Ang nakikita kong kaisa isang purpose nung pagkakalagay pusod nya eh para palabasin na pinanganak sya. Meron pa bang iba?

Pinipilit mo na kelangang me physical cause para sa belly button samantalang creation naman ito at divine forces ang nag-aact sa creation.

Gets mo ba?

-kalbo

Hehe kaya ng illogical eh ...

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by rey_pinioco

Aba problema mo yan ... akala ko ba walang namamatay noon?



Dahil sa tree of life.


In-argue mo na na binigay na ke Adam lahat ng kailangan nya. Ang nakikita kong kaisa isang purpose nung pagkakalagay pusod nya eh para palabasin na pinanganak sya. Meron pa bang iba?


Para di magkagulo at hindi pababayaang hindi maputol ang mga umbilical cords ng mga anak nila?

Other than that, I do not know.



Hehe kaya ng illogical eh ...

Illogical? Divine forces illogical?

-kalbo

[rey_pinioco]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo


Dahil sa tree of life.



Yun pala eh ... sasagutin mo rin pala yung tanong mo.

Para di magkagulo at hindi pababayaang hindi maputol ang mga umbilical cords ng mga anak nila?

Other than that, I do not know.

Duh, lame argument. Pwede namang alam na nila na dapat putulin and umbilical cord ah?

Illogical? Divine forces illogical?

-kalbo

Syemps. By definition, divine/supernatural forces defy physical laws. Kaya mo nga masasabing divine eh.

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by rey_pinioco

Yun pala eh ... sasagutin mo rin pala yung tanong mo.


Pero hindi makakapunta doon si Adam kasi hindi developed muscles nya e! :P



Duh, lame argument. Pwede namang alam na nila na dapat putulin and umbilical cord ah?


Bakit naman nila puputulin kung sila hindi naputulan?




Syemps. By definition, divine/supernatural forces defy physical laws. Kaya mo nga masasabing divine eh.

Creation -> Divine Forces.

-kalbo

[rey_pinioco]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo


Pero hindi makakapunta doon si Adam kasi hindi developed muscles nya e! :P




Again, problema mo yan, dami kasing assumptions eh.

Bakit naman nila puputulin kung sila hindi naputulan?

So me bulok na ipin pala si Adam para alam nila na tinatanggal yun?

Creation -> Divine Forces.

-kalbo

Hehe kaya nga creation/divine forces eh hindi acceptable explanations sa science eh.

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by rey_pinioco

Again, problema mo yan, dami kasing assumptions eh.



Huh?


So me bulok na ipin pala si Adam para alam nila na tinatanggal yun?


Nope. Alang sakit si Adam nang ginawa.



Hehe kaya nga creation/divine forces eh hindi acceptable explanations sa science eh.

E bakit andito ka sa thread na ito kung di ka maka-argue in creation context?

[rey_pinioco]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo
E bakit andito ka sa thread na ito kung di ka maka-argue in creation context?

Ooh! Bakit naubusan ka na ng logical explanations?

Ehehehe kahit yung mga Christian Apologetics e naniniwala na walang navel si Adam eh ... creation context malamang yun diba?

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by rey_pinioco

Ooh! Bakit naubusan ka na ng logical explanations?



Hindi naman. Iniwasan mo lang kasi yung mga explanations ko e. Sinabi mo na lang na problema ko na yun...



Ehehehe kahit yung mga Christian Apologetics e naniniwala na walang navel si Adam eh ... creation context malamang yun diba?

So? Hindi naman ako kasama nila e...

-kalbo

[rey_pinioco]

Originally posted by marlo_kalbo


Hindi naman. Iniwasan mo lang kasi yung mga explanations ko e. Sinabi mo na lang na problema ko na yun...

Aba e logic yung ginagamit ko, tulad nung karamihan ng nag post dito. Ikaw yung nag po post ng illogical. Ang dami mong in assume na wala namang basis.


So? Hindi naman ako kasama nila e...

-kalbo

Just shows that both scientific and biblical approach led to the same conclusion.

[Ischaramoochie]

Adam and Eve would have a navel if (and only if) they were born from a womb with an umbilical cord attached to them at the time of birth.

[little_witch]

Originally posted by Ischaramoochie
Adam and Eve would have a navel if (and only if) they were born from a womb with an umbilical cord attached to them at the time of birth.

ergo, wala!

read this... taken from: www.christiananswers.net

Did Adam have a belly-button?
I believe we can say, "No - Adam didn't. Neither did Eve."
Why? Because your belly-button (navel), or tummy-button as it's sometimes called, is a sign that you were once attached to your mother. You depended on that life-line - the umbilical cord - for your nourishment from her body as you developed inside her.

But our first parents, Adam and Eve, didn't develop that way. I believe that God would not have planted on them a false indication that they had developed in a mother's womb.

When God created Adam and Eve in mature form, the day they were created they might have appeared to be, say, 30 years old. But God wouldn't want or need to create the appearance of a false history, any more than the mature trees created by God would have had growth rings initially. Those are things which would develop in their offspring as a result of processes later on.

What's more, this would be a tremendous testimony to God's creativity. Ken Ham once put it this way: Lack of a belly-button on Adam and Eve would be one of the biggest tourist attractions in the pre-Flood world, as the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren would come up and say, "Why don't you have a belly-button?" And they could recount again and again, to generation after generation, how God had created them special by completed supernatural acts, and yet had designed them to multiply and fill the Earth in natural ways that are equally a part of God's continuing care for what He created.

[marlo_kalbo]

Originally posted by rey_pinioco


Aba e logic yung ginagamit ko, tulad nung karamihan ng nag post dito. Ikaw yung nag po post ng illogical. Ang dami mong in assume na wala namang basis.



I was just following your arguments. I showed their weakness: You were searching for a cause (i.e. Being born) for their belly buttons while not allowing for the possiblity of being created that way. If you try to force yourself to believe that the only cause for belly buttons appearing on Adam and Eve is being born then follow the other arguments I've put forth. (i.e. If Adam didn't go through childhood then Adam's brain is not developed, etc etc)


Just shows that both scientific and biblical approach led to the same conclusion.

What is biblical to them is not necessarily biblical to me, so don't hold me for opinions I don't profess.

-kalbo

[marlo_kalbo]

Now I get it.

Yung sinasabi mong assumptions ay hindi assumptions kundi implications ng mga statements mo.

To make it clear:
Sabi mo walang pusod si Adam kasi hindi siya naputulan.

Following suit (implication)
Wala ring skeletal muscle development si Adam dahil hindi siya nagkaroon ng pagkakataong gumalaw before being created.

Matatanggap ko yung argument mo kung totoo yung implication, that is
1. First statement True implies Second statement True.
2. If second statement is False then first statement cannot True.
3. Since the second statement (about skeletal muscle development) is not true (I have proofs), First statement cannot be true.

Thus your statement is indeed false.

Just to check:
P -> Q = ^P | Q
^Q
-----
^P.

-kalbo