just curios if they had umbilicus, and if they had one ..how is that possible...i know that he and she where THE FIRST in the world, isn't that strange..??!!!
2006-06-17 16:14:09 · 13 answers · asked by ovidiu_ciortan 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Medicine
No wonder any form of intelligent alien life form stays well clear of Earth...its quite clear we are still not ready to ditch the Adam and Eve fairy story in the C21.Come on Professor Stephen Hawkins please carry the torch for Mr. Darwin!!!!!
2006-06-18 09:51:57 · answer #1 · answered by java 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Considering the fact, we don't have any real photographs of them. It's an excellent question.
Of course, the logical answer is no since if you believe the literal genesis tale then there is no need for nutrient transfer.
However, if you believe the less literal which is is that they were simply the first of a race of people who were already on Earth, you'd have to say yes.
It all depends on your level of faith.
2006-06-19 07:56:09 · answer #2 · answered by molex77 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it is a bit of both. They had what only outwardly looked like belly buttons. God made sure they looked the same as their children to avoid confusion.
2006-06-17 23:59:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither Adam or Eve were "born of water" so they did not have umbilical cords or belly buttons.
2006-06-18 04:23:06 · answer #4 · answered by Teacher 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were made by the Father not born of the womb.
2006-06-18 08:33:48 · answer #5 · answered by pycosal 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, I think Adam gave up a rib, so maybe he gave up his belly-button too... that way Eve would have all the babies to populate the planet, which was supposedly flat at that time...
2006-06-18 01:37:44 · answer #6 · answered by Scorpius59 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hi, welcome to the twenty-first century. there is science now. in fact, there's been a theory of evolution for a good dozen decades.
...oh, i guess you're just a part of the american school system.
2006-06-18 00:21:30 · answer #7 · answered by Andreji 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, Noone knows the answer for sure.....well why bother then? they might have had it or not ....whats our problem?? discuss something useful guys!!!!
2006-06-18 08:22:08 · answer #8 · answered by SUNNY 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they were not infants needing nurishment from their mother - so the answer is no
2006-06-18 07:31:08 · answer #9 · answered by je l 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No they did not - but there children did and so did Jesus.
2006-06-20 11:15:51 · answer #10 · answered by hematech 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋