The 'Adam' Analogy

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,863
60,200
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
At the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC, there stood a magnificent statue, over six feet high....called "Adam."

In 2002 it shattered into pieces when it toppled off its pedestal.



1. "The life-size marble statue of Adam, carved by Tullio Lombardo (Italian, ca. 1455–1532), is among the most important works of art from Renaissance Venice ... In 2002,Adamwas gravely damaged in an accident. "
Tullio Lombardo s Adam The Metropolitan Museum of Art


2. In the following is a slideshow of "Adam's" restoration.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/a...r=0#slideshow/100000003223702/100000003223725






An analogy is "a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification."


The NYSun offered a profound analogy, ... ....a comparison, in this case, between the statue, 'Adam,' and Adam, the first man.

.



3. " The return of Adam to the Metropolitan Museum of Art is an exciting moment in the cultural scene in New York — and in more ways than one. The statue... is the first free-standing male nude of the Common Era.

4. The pedestal on which it was resting ... collapsed in 2002, and the six-foot-three-inch tall statue shattered. .... Putting it back together that took more than a decade.

That is something to think about in this age of controversy over the idea of intelligent design.



5. [Intelligent Design] is the idea that the universe and man could have been designed only by a vast intelligence — say, God’s.

This is much ridiculed by the scientific community and the New York Times.




6. The Times reporter, Carol Vogel, marvels at the fact that it took so long to put Adam back together. It took 12 years, though the statue had shattered into only several hundred pieces, 28 of which, Ms. Vogel reports, were “recognizable,” the head among them. The restoration was overseen by ... “dozens of scientists and engineers.”

CatScans were done.

7. Repairs were made to the nose, head, hands, knee, foot, and torso. New, fiberglass pins were used, along with a special adhesive. Laser-mapping technology was used to create a “three-dimensional ‘virtual Adam,’”....



8. ... the museum didn’t have to reassemble the masterpiece atom-by-atom, not to mention quark by quark. Think of all the CatScans that would have required. Imagine, then, what was involved in creating the original statue.

9. Not to mention the original Adam.

10. We’ve always loved the joke about the scientists who go to God to tell Him that He’s no longer needed because they’ve figured out how to make a man. “Show me,” God says. One of the scientists bends down to pick up some dirt.

“Oh, no,” God interrupts. “You have to make your own dirt.”
A Virtual Adam - The New York Sun
 
Again, PC is like reading a chick tract... with slightly less unintentional humor.

dinosaur51.jpg
 
Dunno how I feel about a jigsaw puzzle Adam. Isn't really the original artist's work any more. Putting it back together and labelling it as such is dishonest and counterfeit. Even if known. All you're really showing then is the technology and clverness that put it back together so well, not the original miraculous work that made it perfect without that technology.

Loss of such a work is tragic, but that's life and history. Be like raising the dead if you could. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
 
Restoration of works of art goes on all the time. The world would be a poorer place if we did not take care of what the great artists of the past have left us. That we use science and technology to do so is not germane to the preservation of the art itself.

The OP misses the point entirely.

Science is a means of obtaining and verifying knowledge. Technology is the means by which we implement the knowledge. Art is a means of communication that enables us to express a part of ourselves in a way that is unique. We would not be human if we didn't have art in my opinion. It is part of ourselves and we should recognize it as such. Art is the expression of our emotions and a means by which we can convey them to each other.

So there is no divide between art and science. They are just aspects of ourselves.
 
That is something to think about in this age of controversy over the idea of intelligent design.

There is no controversy. There's no voice within the scientific community saying evolution is wrong, here's why it's wrong, here's an alternate explanation that accounts for the evidence, and so on. There's no movement among biologists pointing out why the literature is flawed, there's no papers being presented at conferences, no articles being published, no one within biology departments getting grant money to get projects off the ground to disprove evolution. There's a handful of crackpots who disregard their training and education and are affiliated with pseudoscience websites and fundamentalists churches who claim evolution can't work but can't (or won't) provide any work to back up their assertions.

You don't have a controversy when one side has centuries of work, literally museums full of artifacts and libraries stuffed with books and papers on the subject and the other side is just religious types with fingers in their ears saying "la la la, I can't hear you, la la la, evolution is a lie, la la la, God did it, la la la, teach the controversy, la la la!"
 
That is something to think about in this age of controversy over the idea of intelligent design.

There is no controversy. There's no voice within the scientific community saying evolution is wrong, here's why it's wrong, here's an alternate explanation that accounts for the evidence, and so on. There's no movement among biologists pointing out why the literature is flawed, there's no papers being presented at conferences, no articles being published, no one within biology departments getting grant money to get projects off the ground to disprove evolution. There's a handful of crackpots who disregard their training and education and are affiliated with pseudoscience websites and fundamentalists churches who claim evolution can't work but can't (or won't) provide any work to back up their assertions.

You don't have a controversy when one side has centuries of work, literally museums full of artifacts and libraries stuffed with books and papers on the subject and the other side is just religious types with fingers in their ears saying "la la la, I can't hear you, la la la, evolution is a lie, la la la, God did it, la la la, teach the controversy, la la la!"



First: "There's no voice within the scientific community saying evolution is wrong,...."

Then: "There's a handful of crackpots who disregard their training and education and are affiliated with pseudoscience websites and fundamentalists churches who claim evolution can't work..."


The lady doth protest too much, methinks -
Hamlet, Act 3, scene 2.
 
Fine. Show me the citations for the scientific literature that's being debated in biology departments about why evolution is wrong. Show me the papers being presented at bio conferences taking the position that we really should scrap evolution in favor of ID. Maybe some papers in big journals like Call, Nature, Science, PNAS. Don't give me quotes taken out of context, give me the technical materials I can look up on my own.

Your experts like Behe either want to expand science so much that astrology becomes science, doesn't know (or just disregards) the mountains of materials on areas like irreducible complexity (again, Behe) or claim ID is true, but just aren't producing the technical materials to back it up. The only source of controversy is statements from the Discotute who are claiming that there's a controversy in the hopes that scientifically illiterate rubes with a religious agenda will think there's a controversy.
 
Fine. Show me the citations for the scientific literature that's being debated in biology departments about why evolution is wrong. Show me the papers being presented at bio conferences taking the position that we really should scrap evolution in favor of ID. Maybe some papers in big journals like Call, Nature, Science, PNAS. Don't give me quotes taken out of context, give me the technical materials I can look up on my own.

Your experts like Behe either want to expand science so much that astrology becomes science, doesn't know (or just disregards) the mountains of materials on areas like irreducible complexity (again, Behe) or claim ID is true, but just aren't producing the technical materials to back it up. The only source of controversy is statements from the Discotute who are claiming that there's a controversy in the hopes that scientifically illiterate rubes with a religious agenda will think there's a controversy.



You must hate it when I nail you with your own words.

Priceless.
 
Do try to keep up. There is no argument within the scientific community about evolution versus any other hypothesis. There is no controversy over evolution among real biologists. There are a handful of trained scientists, some of whom even have PhDs in biology and biochemistry and geology and physics, who argue that evolution is wrong, but they aren't arguing it within the scientific community. They argue it from religious and/or pseudo-science institutions, but not from within the scientific community. They aren't producing the work that goes with their position.
 
PC's admission that she is unfamiliar with the literature that demonstrates there is "no argument within the scientific community about evolution versus any other hypothesis" is obvious.

The debate by scientists outside of the scientific community is just that: outside the scientific community.
 
eTrade: Jungle Jim

Adam governs a world of mercantilism-catalyzed globalization (i.e., eTrade). Such a consumerism approach to lifestyle can create gluttony and greed, but Adam keeps balance with insights into networking.

The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France to the USA, and Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" (1818) always reminds us of the eeriness of using life-size totems and self-image symbols to contemplate human motion.

I like imagining that the American credit card company Discover is actually Adam's passport into today's culture of 'network liquidation.'

Anyone see that relevant Hollywood (USA) movie "The Bonfire of the Vanities" (1990)?





:arrow:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bonfire_of_the_Vanities_(film)


aquaman.jpg
 
PC's admission that she is unfamiliar with the literature that demonstrates there is "no argument within the scientific community about evolution versus any other hypothesis" is obvious.

The debate by scientists outside of the scientific community is just that: outside the scientific community.



There is no area in which knowledge amounts to even a mote of mine.
 
PC's admission that she is unfamiliar with the literature that demonstrates there is "no argument within the scientific community about evolution versus any other hypothesis" is obvious.

The debate by scientists outside of the scientific community is just that: outside the scientific community.



There is no area in which knowledge amounts to even a mote of mine.
There is no area in which your knowledge amounts to more than cut and paste "quotes".
 
Picture Pumpkinhead

A picture is worth a thousand words, and the reason that everyone these days seems to be walking around with a mobile phone with a handy-dandy built-in mini-camera inside it is perhaps because consumerism culture (i.e., eBay, eTrade, Facebook, Burger King, etc.) creates its own language of 'colloquialized art.'

In this modern environment of economics-catalyzed lifestyle, Adam is truly a 'walking timebomb.'

Here's a collage of photos representing passion accessibility.


:arrow:


rapture.jpg
 
The statue Adam is an artificial construct, so it is obviously made by man. Atheists will look at anything artificial, like the Empire State Building, and admire its design.

That same atheist will look at a tree, which is also beautiful in its own way, and not appreciate what it truly is -- a unique creation of a loving God, given to mankind as a gift.
 
That same atheist will look at a tree, which is also beautiful in its own way, and not appreciate what it truly is -- a unique creation of a loving God, given to mankind as a gift.

BZZZZT Wrong!

An atheist will look at a tree and see the evolution of life in action. It was plant life that first colonized the land before animal life crawled out of the sea. If there had been no plant life there would have been no food or shelter. Trees are just the most majestic of all plant life but they follow the same pattern with roots, stems, leaves and leaves.
 
Yep. Just because I understand the mechanisms behind solar fusion, the speed of light, particle diffusion in the atmosphere, electromagnetic wavelengths and how they interact with receptors in our eyes doesn't mean I can't appreciate a beautiful sunset on a purely aesthetic level.
 
Yep. Just because I understand the mechanisms behind solar fusion, the speed of light, particle diffusion in the atmosphere, electromagnetic wavelengths and how they interact with receptors in our eyes doesn't mean I can't appreciate a beautiful sunset on a purely aesthetic level.
If you don't understand that God made that sunset as a personal gift to you, then you don't understand it.
 
Yep. Just because I understand the mechanisms behind solar fusion, the speed of light, particle diffusion in the atmosphere, electromagnetic wavelengths and how they interact with receptors in our eyes doesn't mean I can't appreciate a beautiful sunset on a purely aesthetic level.
If you don't understand that God made that sunset as a personal gift to you, then you don't understand it.

:lmao:

Did he also make the sunset a "personal gift" to the ISIS killers who beheaded those Americans?

Your God must really like those ISIS killers if he gave them a "personal gift" of sunsets.

Can you explain why your God likes ISIS killers so much that he gives them "personal gifts" of sunsets?
 

Forum List

Back
Top