[golfing eagles]

I think I missed the point of this thread. I guess I let my subscription to "The National Inquirer" lapse

[Lottoguy]

Trust me I know what is real and what is not. Less then 1% of the people know what USAP stands for. Learn what it is then your mind will understand was is real and what is not.

[Lottoguy]

The artwork is there. Start with the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and go from there. Do I really need to take you by the hand?

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Lottoguy

Yes, your right. Peer review would be needed. While were at it, why do all of the middle ages artwork show Adam and Eve with a bellybutton? Think about that............take your time.

Did you start this thread
ShutUpImTalking also or is the nearly exactly same phrase a coincidence?

"You know what's funny? Paintings of Adam & Eve where they both have belly buttons. Think about it, take as much time as you need."

There actually is a lot of "serious" material on this question. On one side are theologians who say as neither Adam nor Eve were ever attached to a placenta they would not have had a navel. This biology thinking seems to be out of place in a theological discussion.

Some have taken the side that Adam had a navel because later Jesus would have a navel and that this is the image being copied. And Adam had nipples too, which certainly were not needed for his biological success. So the "fact" that Adam had nipples is not disputed supports his also having a navel as both would be features not of biology but of copying the image of God. Theology tops biology if you have faith.

so now that you have "thought about it" do you still feel the certainty that Adam did not have a navel?

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by blueash

Did you start this thread
ShutUpImTalking also or is the nearly exactly same phrase a coincidence?

"You know what's funny? Paintings of Adam & Eve where they both have belly buttons. Think about it, take as much time as you need."

There actually is a lot of "serious" material on this question. On one side are theologians who say as neither Adam nor Eve were ever attached to a placenta they would not have had a navel. This biology thinking seems to be out of place in a theological discussion.

Some have taken the side that Adam had a navel because later Jesus would have a navel and that this is the image being copied. And Adam had nipples too, which certainly were not needed for his biological success. So the "fact" that Adam had nipples is not disputed supports his also having a navel as both would be features not of biology but of copying the image of God. Theology tops biology if you have faith.

so now that you have "thought about it" do you still feel the certainty that Adam did not have a navel?

Adam's Navel: A Natural and Cultural History of the Human Form by Michael Sims — Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

There is an interesting book on the navel and this history of thoughts about it among other stuff.

[Chi-Town]

This reminds me of the shortest poem ever written titled Fleas

Adam
Had 'em

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

This reminds me of the shortest poem ever written titled Fleas

Adam
Had 'em

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

But where did they come from? Did he make fleas from dirt?

[redwitch]

Adam/Eve navels in art. Really simple explanation -- they were paintings, not photographs and subject to artistic interpretation. I doubt the people of Michelangelo's or Reuben's time would have accepted Adam and Eve without navels. And let's not forget that witches had red hair, the evil eye could ward a witch off, the plague was caused by evil spirits, not fleas. All verifiable medieval facts.

As to the Peru discovery, who knows? The sources cited certainly aren't mainstream or scientific sites. When living in SF, I'd listen to KSFO for comic relief when it changed to talk format. So glad to hear it hasn't changed. I'd be seriously surprised if there weren't other life forms in this universe, some with more advanced technology, some with less. Could they have visited and died here? Entirely possible. However, unless a living alien deigns to visit and reveal itself to the world, I doubt we will ever know for sure until we travel to the stars. Until then, it is all conjecture.

[Lottoguy]

Your dismissing something before it even gets tested. Yes, it may be a hoax. But then again it might be something truly amazing. It's interesting how people go straight to SNOPES for their opinion. And I stress the word OPINION. How would they know it is fake after just 48 hours of announcing the discovery? That should tell you something. Imagine if King Tut's tomb was opened today and we are shown all of the amazing items in gold. Not doubt SNOPES would sake it's fake and photoshopped. Let's at least wait for answers on this.

[Lottoguy]

Ancient Aliens is a very interesting show. Have you ever looked into the majestic documents web site? Interesting stuff there.

[davefin]

Can't wait for the Reality TV show!

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Lottoguy

Ancient Aliens is a very interesting show. Have you ever looked into the majestic documents web site? Interesting stuff there.

My questions are answered, the OP is serious about this subject.

I have been taught theology by a Jesuit and studied Anatomy taught by an atheist. As for archeological discoveries of note, I like to hear about them from globally recognized institutions.

This thread wins some kind of prize.

[aninjamom]

I'll bet the "alien" was left there after the filming of "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull". Wasn't that filmed there?

[Lottoguy]

Photos to prove that please? Shouldn't be hard since it is family.

[Lottoguy]

I doubt the Indian Jones movie was using mummy's with Carbon 14 dating to the year 250 AD.