I just looked at that painting on Wikipedia and he certainly appears to have a navel.
I don't know what I don't know. The idea that the painting did not have a navel on Adam was on a Trivia TV show. It seems weird that they would get that wrong... but maybe there was more to the trivia that I didn't catch. Anyway the idea that Adam and Eve and all the animals were created rather than born, still makes me wonder why no one tries to use that as an argument for why the chicken came first... from A religious point of view.
I would be amazed at how many semantic jerks we have in this community, but as often as this group debates so many things about the tiniest details, it isn't actually surprising. And for those of you who feel that any religious point of view is moot to the argument because of Science!... I see your moot point and raise you the moot point of making a Science! answer in a Creation! conversation. Moot meet moo.