If Adam and Eve does exist, which I am sure it does, why did Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" show a White.
Topic: Tanzania research
June 26, 2019 / By Kris Question:
Show a White Adam. The scientific research indicates that human beings began in somewhere Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania, so that would mean the humans were dark skinned.
Best Answers: If Adam and Eve does exist, which I am sure it does, why did Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" show a White.
Jayma | 9 days ago
It is a painting therefore subject to the artist's views on the matter. The latest scientific research may show that the first humans were dark skinned but the painting is hundred's of years old, before that research was published.
👍 146 | 👎 9
Did you like the answer? If Adam and Eve does exist, which I am sure it does, why did Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" show a White.
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Tanzania research
Because the picture was painted by a European to appeal to a European audience. At the time it was painted no one questioned the appearance of Adam. It was assumed by all that he was of a European appearance since the Europeans believed themselves to be the ONLY civilized people in the world. At that time they believed that Adam HAD to be white because they were descended from Adam and they were white. That was also how they justified their treatment of other races, they believed that there was somehting iheratnly wrong with them that kept them from being white, and thus pure. Even now most Christians in the west still believe Adam was white (Jesus too). Even though the description of his appearance in the bible is NOT of a person that has a European appearance. That's what happens whe a religion is taken out of the context it belings in, people get things wrong and refuse to accept correction...even in the face of incontrovertible evidence. That's why, when the European crusaders arrived in the holy land, they decided the Christians there had been corrupted by the Jews and Muslims becasue they weren't practicing the christian religion the way it was done in europe. The truth was that the Middle Eastern Christians had been practicing the religion the same way since its inception and it was the Europeans that had it wrong, but instead of recognizing that these people had an unbroken line of succession, they slaughtered as many as they could. This is why peolpe that are not of Middle Eastern descent should NOT be christians, they will never be able to get it right...they have to change it to make it what they need it to be....
👍 50 | 👎 3
Because Michelangelo secretly knew god and god told him one night around a square table after a few beers, that he should paint adam white to confuse cultures all around the world to the true makeup of religion and race and identity. So many wars could be fought and many people could die fighting for something we will probably never know the answers to until we are dead.
👍 42 | 👎 -3
Artists have not always been known for portraying religious details accurately... rather... using artisit license, most of them project themselves into their art...
Couple that with the fact that Michelangelo didn't have benefit of the results of the scientific research of which you speak.
👍 34 | 👎 -9
who said the michelangelo agreed with scientific research he wasnt exactly there back in the day seeing what was going on. its art not science
👍 26 | 👎 -15
yes, but michelangelo was conforming to the racist views at the time. no one back then wanted to believe that they evolved from a lineage of dark-skinned people.
👍 18 | 👎 -21
because white people only believe God is white and created man in him own image, it's a true fact God is a white man.
👍 10 | 👎 -27
Originally Answered: How does human evolution disprove Adam and Eve and creation?
First: Your opinion does not change reality. In order for evolution to occur, the theory MUST have "long ages," if the earth is only a few thousand years old, (as the Genesis account claims), then evolution has its legs cut off and nothing to stand on, so yes, I'm all for science...
Radioactive decay is not a constant it is a rarely changing variable. There’s is a strong and growing body of evidence that something is changing the decay rates and branching ratios in several reactions. The mainstream is trying to ignore the data from repeated replications of the Fleischmann Pons effect and other similar work. http://www.lenr-canr.org/ covers this work. so does http://www.infinite-energy.com/ but it ventures way out side the box.
There is also the Rate work that proved that there’s an anomaly in granite. The granite has not got enough He trapped in it to correspond with the decay path assumed and the he cant leak out significantly. http://austore.creation.com/catalog/radi...
Yes its creationist work because only someone already outside the box is allowed to look at this stuff. When accelerations occur we are not talking about the normal decay pathway being sped up; We are talking about the elements skipping to another path that has the same products.
Those testing this phenomenon need to look at the polonium halo work and embed an isotope in silicon or quartz. As the decay paths switch they will get high electrons decay products burning rings in the silicate. The radius from the sample will give you the new decay path.
While most here are able to ‘think out side the box’ on climate there’s is a strong tendency to run back into the box and lock your self in when cosmology or origins comes up. Be brave enough to look through Galileo’s telescope. Only by not looking can you be blind to the future of science. The truths you were taught are not all that robust. The lies you were taught are falling. You are in the loop on the fall of the climate change myth, The same people in academia fight tooth and nail against creationism, cold fusion and the non big bang cosmologies. If they're wrong on one why not all three. All three are looking at variable decay rates in different contexts.
There is also PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED evidence that the basement granites in the earth's crust were formed QUICKLY: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5725394906886443944#
After you're done watching that 28 minute video, explain to the class how these rocks formed gradually and cooled over "millions of years" http://www.terragalleria.com/america/arizona/coyote-buttes/
Oh, and I work at a testing laboratory and i know how to use a Mass Spectrometer for Radiometric dating. Since you claim that "it doesn't matter what conditions on the earth had 4.5 billion years ago" (You MUST accept this to believe the earth is [billions] of years old), perhaps you'd also like to explain to the class HOW we artificially MANUFACTURE radioactive isotopes TODAY: http://hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/ohre/roadmap/achre/intro_9_4.html
At what point in time in the past can you or any of your classmates prove that the earth itself was NOT subject to neutron bombardment? Radiometric dating is the crutch that "supports" evolution; if you can't prove radiometric dating, how do you expect to "prove" evolution?