Mayim Bialik, Mythbusters, Bill Nye answer Superman trailer question

TV Arts

Now that's just silly.  Everybody knows he uses his heat vision,
reflected off a piece of the rocket that brought him here.

In the old days, he didn't have to shave at all because his hair and
nails didn't grow under a yellow sun.

I mean, this is science.  People should take it seriously.
But that one time he did need to, Supergirl and Krypto teamed up and 
used their heat vision on him.

Bill Nye is an ignorant douchbag.
I feel bad for Nye. He's been an educator for 20 years and in that
time the populace has only become more hostile towards science. He
famously got booed offstage in Texas. He needn't bother to even show
up in Arizona.
Nye was okay when he was just doing his Mr. Wizard rip off 
demonstrations, but now that he's going on TV attempting to debate 
actual scientists, it's painfully obvious he's just been reading scripts 
and doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about.  He suffers 
from what Michael Crichton called 'thintelligence'
While you and I will continue to disagree about Neil Degrasse Tyson, 
we're definitely on the same page when it comes to Nye. Plus, the older 
he gets, the more he comes across as an even creepier Mr. Rogers.
LOL, I was thinking Don Knotts.  :)
I guess that works if your first thought of Nye is "annoying," and I 
would have been right there with you in years past. But at some point, 
he crossed over into the creepy zone for me. Bill Nye, the Creepy Guy.
He got booed off the stage for saying that the moon has no light of
its own but only reflects sunlight. How many scientific credentials do
you need to make an authoritative statement on that subject?
Well, there is all that infrared light being emitted by Selene...
Except, you know, for the part where it never happened:
So the true story is that he wasn't booed off the stage but rather than 
people in the audience yelled at him and then walked out on the lecture 
because it (his commenting that the moon was not a light source) 
contradicted the bible?  Is that really any better?
I haven't heard it yet.
LOL, for what Earthly reason would green cheese glow?  In the absence
of blacklight of course.

I don't know much about Superman, but where did he get the costume?
Did he make it?  Was he able to recreate superdooper items from his
home world?
Ma Kent made it from the red, blue, and yellow babyblankets and seatbelt 
from the rocket ship.

And if so, how did she make it? What earth tools could she have used 
that would have allowed her to sew and cut it?

She unraveled the blankets and rewove them into a playsuit for Clark,
who cut the threads with the heat of his X-ray vision (later, heat
vision).  When it came time to make the costume, Ma unwove the
What PB said.  Seriously.
Oh, for fuck's sake. Now I remember why I stopped reading comics.
Me too: not being able to read is a prerequisite to join the Tea Party.
LOL, at least they addressed it.
Of course that was all rebooted away some 30 years back.
And the boots were molded from insulation.

The costume stretched with Kal-El as he grew older, but they never
explained how his cape stayed in sync with it.  The cape can be
stretched (and frequently was, to contain explosions and so on) but
it's attached to Kal at only two points, at the collar, so it's not
taut and, therefore, can't stretch.  And if Superboy hid the rest of an
adult-sized cape under his shirt, the yellow \S/ should be more than
halfway down Superman's back.

During the Silver Age, the original costume was still in use in 2965,
when Superman the 30th wore it.
I believe his boots are knitted just like the rest of it.  Note classic 
Superman doesn't have heels or anything hard; you can wear socks all the 
time if the material (and your toes) is indestructible.

There's a book that has them remaking Superbaby's costume into 
Superboy's costume as he grew; I took it for granted that they did this 
more than once.  IIRC Superboy had to use his heat vision to cut thread; 
this brings up the alarming prospect that a Kryptonian supervillain (or 
playful cousin or careless dog [or vice versa]) could completely unravel 
the uniform with a single glance ...
I think you're right.  I seem to recall when I played Superman, I'd wear 
my blue pyjamas, put underwear on over them, andtuck the pymama bottoms 
into socks.

No, the boots were made from "the rubber lining of the passenger
compartment" of Kal-El's rocket.  See "The Superboy Legend" at this



The two-pager (from Superboy v1 #169, October 1970) summarizes the
Silver Age account of the costume's origins nicely.

Superboy/man's boots were often shown to have soles and heels.  He even
occasionally hid things in one of the heels.

BTW people have sometimes asked, "Whatever happened to the rest of the
yellow blanket?"

Wow, there's just *so* much oddness in there.  So Pa Kent just lets his 
newly adopted baby boy run lose in a field with a mad bull??  Is the 
bull dead?  What is his tricycle made of that it can survive going so 
fast that cloth burst into flame?  I doubt I could jam a pitchfork 
through a blanket hanging on a line either.

That 4th dimensional cape pouch was the thing we couldn't buy into, even 
as little kids.

Nice that the artist got the cape attachment wrong.

Hmm.  I wonder, did Swan draw heels?

That was then-current Superboy artist Bob Brown, with Wally Wood inks.

When he needed to, as in a story I'm thinking of where Superman,
captured and depowered, had hidden a lock pick in one of his heels. 
Curt was a dense penciller, which is one reason why he transitioned so
easily from the Weisinger era to the more illustrative Schwartz years. 
Inkers such as George Klein skipped over much, if not most, of Curt's
pencilling, while Murphy Anderson would ink everything.


Supergirl artist Jim Mooney once did a panel that showed Linda Danvers
getting ready for a date, and you could see about a quarter-segment of
her bra cup as she sat at her vanity and fooled with her wig.  That
was, I think, the only time we ever got to see any of Linda's
underwear, although you'd think she wouldn't need support garments. 
BTW late in his life Mooney would do Supergirl sketches on order for
pay, and he almost always gave her a pair of perky nipples.  The
Ick.  Well, yay for WW.

I remember seeing some issues during an ill advised flirtation with 
nudity and Linda was changing clothes and we saw from behind that she 
wore no foundation garments ... which, come do think of it, is perfectly 
reasonable, since her breasts would defy gravity like the rest of her.
What I wanna know is, how'd she get them pierced?

(What?  Why is everybody looking at me like that?)
There ya go!
Thanks McCloud.

There were a few stories in which Superman's indestructible costume was
somewhat destructed (heh) in fights with Kryptonian outlaws, giant
monster bugs from Krypton and, well, you get the idea.  There was
always some mention about Superman repairing his costume, but always by
unknown means.

Superman had spares that weren't nearly as tough as the original, but
it was never explained why he didn't just have some spare costumes
whipped up in Kandor, or have the original one repaired there.

I'm glad this thread has drifted from nonsense such as the moon glowing
under its own power to the indisputable facts of Superman's costume.
I got sick of his cape being shredded in the stupid Byrne reboot almost 
instantly; why the hell would you wear a destructible cape, at least 
after the first week?

Kandor ... just works as a magic answer for *so* many problems.

Stuff that Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson know nothing about!
Maybe Byrne was part of the Edna School of No Capes?
Or maybe he's an overrated undertalented "lie at the drop of a hat" 
overly defensive douchebag? Or am I thinking of JMS here?
There are so many working in the entertainment industry that
this would fit with.  Where do we begin?
Fair point.
Liar, liar, pants on fire! Neil helped Supes to see the destruction of 
Krypton live, so Neil is all kinds of informed about the big guy. Now go 
change your pants. :)
Did you notice that Tyson got the location of Krypton totally *wrong*?
How was it wrong?
The dimwit picked a star so close that if wackiness had ensued within 
Supe's lifetime, we'd know about it.
Perhaps, but for the sake of the narrative that required Supes to be his 
present age and still see his home world explode, Tyson did the best he 
could, given the requirements.

And keep in mind that, from *our* perspective, we're only now seeing 
Krypton explode, so any wackiness as a result would not have happened 
before this point.
Or, Tyson's an incompetent moronic douchebag, like Sheldon Cooper says.
Aren't you the one who says that Sheldon Cooper never got anything right 
in his life? :)
Not about comics or movies, no.  Apparently he's right about people 
Neil isn't a person; he's a rock star.
All the credibility and talent of Courtney Love.  Or Justin Beiber.
I had no idea that Courtney and Justin were both so highly regarded!
The one who's going into space?
If his neighbors don't beat him to death first.
How the hell did this thread go from important stuff like Superman's
costume to twaddle about Justin Beeper?
It was necessary to degrade DeGrasse Tyson.

Speaking of Superman's costume ... gads, that Man of Steel outfit is 
ugly.  New trailer out today, action packed, and boring as hell.  Less 
than a week out and they're still suppressing the reviews.
Don't be a hater.

I watched my first trailer for this thing the other day, and Cavill 
didn't say a single word in it. Not as Supes and not as Clark. Kinda 
makes me wonder what that should tell me when the people promoting this 
movie don't seem to want to use a promo to showcase the talents of the 
guy playing the lead.
In the most recent trailer he has a line, but it's done as a voice over 
(It's not an S) rather than show his mouth move.


"Not since Brandon Routh..."

Still no reviews:
Oh, my. So this guy isn't very highly regarded? I looked at IMDb and saw 
nothing there that I've watched him in in the past.
Pitching the talents of the lead is a waste of time.  All the potential
audience wants is explosions and destruction and lots of punching and
more explosions.  All of that was in the trailer.
Then why bother with a script or real people or writers? Why not just do 
a bunch of CGI action scenes and blow up a bunch of stuff and call it a day?
Ah, so you saw "Battle Los Angeles" too?
Didn't even rent the DVD. For free. From the library. :)
Well, I loved it, but it is on the "guilty pleasure" list. I yell
things out loud while watching it, like "YEAH, SMOKE THAT ALIEN
BATTLE:  LOS ANGELES was bad, but not completely unwatchable like BATTLE OF 
LOS ANGELES.  If I was going to sit down and watch this story, I'd pick 
SKYLINE over either one of them, just for the what is going on here ending.
Not me, brother.  I wanna' see two hours of alien ass-kicking.
Mmmm, smoked alien turkey ...
on wheat with maui onion mustard.  MMMMMMMMM
I enjoyed it quite a bit.  I watched it expecting to have some fun, and
it delivered everything it promised.  More, maybe.

I liked Monsters for much the same reason.  In fact, I thought it was
brilliantly done.
27 years later of course.  Which is what happens in the story.
How did he get the location of a fictional planet wrong?
No, he didn't; the movies did.  Even before this latest reboot in the
comics, there was a story in which Superman had to hide deep
underground in order to escape the wavefront of radiation from
Krypton's explosion when it reached Earth.  That puts Krypton 25 to 30
l.y. away.  There was also a story in which dead Argo City arrived at
Earth and caused Superman all sorts of trouble.  The thing in the
movies about intergalactic travel -- well, maybe Movie Krypton was
capable of that, but how would Jor-El have been able to detect and sort
out Earth from the trillions of stars between Rao and Sol?  There would
likely have been millions of candidate planets much closer to Krypton.

I would also argue that a race capable of intergalactic travel would
have had other natives and their descendants out there somewhere.  You
just don't go from Volkswagens to super-Enterprises in one go, no
matter how bright Jor-El was supposed to have been.  A close-range
interstellar shot through space warps, maybe.
Ironically, later in that same Bill Nye speech in Texas*, he made a comment 
about how Super Man's cape really would not be able to stretch enough to 
contain explosions.  Several audience members became irate, stood up, 
shouted about how 'people in these parts do not take to anyone contradicting 
the comic lore', and walked out.

*Well, ok, this really didn't happen, but it could have since the fanbases 
are similarly obsessed.
First, he's wrong, as usual.  Superman's cape is *very* stretchy.  And 
as long as it fits around the bomb ...
Superman was often shown containing bomb explosions, even nuclear ones,
with his stretchable cape.  That's conclusive, observable evidence and,
therefore, any opinion to the contrary is unscientific.  I mean, we're
trying to be serious here.

Also, who the hell could write his name as "Super Man" and expect to be
taken seriously?
That thought was the origin of the whole "family crest" business, 
enabling Lois to give him his name, and excuse him for going around with 
a big S on his chest. 

I suppose Siegel originally drew on Nietsche.

And makes me wondeer: Practically every hero has a chest emblem -- a 
lantern, an hourglass, a lightning bolt, a bat. Where did that start? Is 
it about artistic balance? I notice that characters who don't have it 
usually have some multicolored pattern, like Plastic Man.
Wasn't The Phantom the first to wear tights?  Despite the fact that he has 
no powers.  Surely that fits into it, once someone was wearing tights, the 
others would too.  Ironically tights on Superman fits, it makes him 
aaerodynamically sleek, while The Phantom in the jungle initially looks 
just different.

But I can't picture an emblem on The Phantom's costume, so it had to come 
between him and the rest.

well, an argument can be made for Robin Hood, but, yeah

  Surely that fits into it, once someone was wearing tights, the 

The Redcross Knight in Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene (1590) has a 
blood red cross on the front of his armor.
Maybe so.  It's still astonishing how much was there in the very first
story -- Krypton, the Kents, the secret identity, the newspaper, Lois,
all the absolutely necessary stuff.

Superman was the first true superhero, so it started with him.  It's a
good question as to where they got the idea to put an emblem on his
chest in the first place, though.  Was it sheer inspiration or, like so
much else surrounding Superman, "borrowed" from somewhere else?

The first one to have an emblem but *not* centered on his chest would
be Robin, I think.
Indirectly so via the Nazis, with a twist, at least from what I read.  
Two Jewish guys in Cleveland heard about the Nazis claiming the 
Nietzschean Uebermensch as their representative, and countered with 
their own version of the Superman: might for right, rather than might 
makes right.

What I liked most about the early seasons of _Smallville_ was Jonathan 
Kent and Lionel Luthor raising their respective sons to be embodiments
of these opposing philosophies.

Bear in mind that their first "superman" was a supervillain.
Poking around, I notice hat Flash Gordon had anemblem on his chest -- a 
sunburst in the strip I saw. And a lot of the characters in FG were 
wearing tights, so maybe Shuster was trying to make Superman look 
science fictional. 

Mostly, I think, superhero tights are supposed to allow freedom of 
movement, for fighting and jumping around on rooftops and such. Or 
running around in the Jungle, for the Phantom. The Shadow didn't seem to 
have any problem with any of that, though.
Maybe.  Before Superman, heroes were regular guys (and, once in a great
while, women) who derived their abilities from magical sources. 
Superman was not only the first attempt at a superhero, but a hero
whose abilities could be explained by scientific means, e.g., the size
of Krypton vs. the size of Earth.  (I'm not saying the science was
valid, just that there was an attempt to explain his powers that way.) 
Kal-El was also an alien, of course, and that hadn't been done before
in comics, although aliens had been all over the sf pulp magazines for
a decade, though usually not as the main character in a story.  More to
the point, Kal-El was a *good* alien, and those were extremely rare in
pulps.  They were almost always depicted as sidekicks, if they were
seen at all.

I'm sure there are minor exceptions to these broad strokes.
Flash had the sunburst and sometimes the triangle, but I'm not sure if 
he had them before Superman - the early Flash had the fancy collar but 
no chest emblem.
I'm not sure I understand; the "fancy collar" throws me.  Are we
talking about Jay Garrick and his tin hat?  If so, Jay didn't debut
until Flash Comics v1 #001, cover date January 1940. Jay has the
lightning bolt centered on his shirt from the beginning.  In fact,
Jay's costume just sort of appears on him midway through the origin
story.  We never see how he comes up with it.
BAD Bubba, succumbing to an impulse.
Not sure I'm all that bad, but at least I've finally got it that you
meant Flash Gordon.  Duh.  Sorry.
I thought I'd missed something, I thought Superman did come before the 
others, including "Flash", so you weren't the only one that missed a bit 

Or "futuristic".  I think I've always seen the clash of those superhero 
costumes and the people around them. One minute it looks like the future, 
when wham, everyone else is wearing grey suits.

I always found The Phantom odd, though intriguing.  Something about those 
pistols seems odd, I guess because men in tights generally have 
superpowers and don't need ordinary guns.  And I once wrote here that The 
Phantom had a sword, when it was Captain Action that had the sword (or did 
I get that reversed this time?), another thing out of place for  a man in 

But once the tights were in place, it was hard to shake them.  You're 
right, the Shadow didn't need them, and neither did The Green Hornet, yet 
Batman is running around in such an outfit, and doesn't even coordinate 
with Robin.

I assume that 1) owing to the visual nature of the medium, 2) the fact 
that some of the readers might be only partially literate in the 
language (young children, recent immigrants), and 3) the desire to 
indisputably trademark the look of the characters, the creators of 
superheroic comic book characters wanted them to be instantly 
identifiable and distinguishable from other comic book characters, even 
when drawn by other artists with their own styles, and without the need 
for words or even narrative context to aid in the process.  I think the 
chest emblems were intended to mark the characters as unique.  Why on 
the chest?  Central location I guess.

Dashing about the jungle in real life would lead to a lot of runs in the 
Phantom's tights.  Of course, Superman's tights are almost 
indestructible, but not all superheroes can make the same claim.  Given 
what some of the lesser powered and even unpowered heroes get up to, 
light body armor would make more sense than tights, even allowing for 
the restriction of movement.

Both the Shadow and the Green Hornet were born on the radio, which 
perhaps explains why they weren't given much visual splash even when 
they were transferred to visual media.

Because of the visual nature of comic books, I always assumed that the 
reason for dressing superheroes in tights was as a concession to modesty 
when the actual aim was to depict whatever is considered at the time to 
be a hyper-masculine muscular physique.  Superman (and subsequently most 
other male superheroes that came after) used to look modeled on the body 
builders of the current time.  (Last I saw him, he looked like he had 
tumors upon tumors instead of muscles, but I guess to some mindsets, 
there's no such thing as overdone.)

There's no logical or narrative reason why a Kryptonian on Earth should 
have to look like a human body builder.  It's established in the story 
that all Kryptonians under a yellow sun have close to the same powers 
regardless of how they look.  The explanation I heard about Supergirl is 
that she's only incrementally less powerful than Superman by the same 
amount that an average human female would be less powerful than an 
average human male, i.e., it's not a proportional analogy.  Therefore if 
Superman can bench press a google tons, Supergirl can bench press a 
google tons minus 50 pounds or whatever.  Yet Supergirl is not similarly 
given a musclebound look.

The creators of Superman gave him a look that was culturally emblematic 
of super-manliness, and that look was muscles.  The tights simply allow 
his muscles to remain visible without requiring him to be naked.  Clark 
Kent in a business suit is a big guy, but you can't see his muscles.  As 
real-world body builders through the decades got larger and more 
minutely defined in their musculature, so did Superman and his brethren.

Technically correct, but misleading. The Shadow began as a voice hosting 
an anthology series on the radio. Street and Smith sought to cash in by 
creating a magazine with that title, and The Shadow as we know him (some 
of us, anyway) was born in the pulps, and visualized by pulp cover 
artists -- pretty close to what Gibson described, but I guess we have 
them to thank for the red cloak lining and the thing over his mouth 
Probably to account for the sephurcal voice on the radio. 

I've always presumed the tights are to provide freedom of movement, 
which is why circus performers wear them. Bob Kane often described 
Batman in a fight as "Acro-Batman." For flyers, of course, air 
resistance. (I always wondered why Jay Garrick's helmet didn't fly off.)
I figured the tights were due to circus performers, especially the strong
men. Why they wore tights, I dunno.

Quite. Why couldn't Supes look like a middle-aged accountant, paunchy
and balding, especially with the glasses?
Perhaps the same reason: to show off physique without actual nudity.  I'm 
sure that's the idea behind ballet dancers wearing tights (though I'm also 
sure that ballet dancers were not the inspiration behind superheroes).
I've also suspected a closeted gay male influence on comic book hero 
design through the years, via both some of the artists and a segment of 
the audience, but I don't have any evidence, just an eyebrow raised at 
the whole muscled gladiator look.

Works for me, but then most dramatic protagonists are more traditionally 
good-looking, while the average-looking actors/characters are more 
likely to be relegated to sidekick or comic roles.  It's not just the 
superhero genre that does it.  The tendency is even more pronounced with 
female roles. I like _Arrow_ reasonably well for its genre, but in the 
real world, Oliver Queen could battle the type of evil he's trying to 
fight much more effectively by leveraging his family fortune against his 
opponents than by all that silly physical training he does.

Same notation for Captain Jack; billionaires should be able to do 
something about The Glades by tossing money at it, not bombs.
So he reverses his roles?  Superman has the suit and glasses, Clark Kent 
has the tights?  I've seen some odd people around, but I don't think you 
want ot stand out when you aren't saving the world, and men in tights tend 
to stand out.

But, he could wear the suit and glasses while saving the world, then no 
glasses and a different suit, or leisurewear, when in his normal life.

Good point.

The Shadow was a gun bunny though.
No Kents.  Just a passing motorist and orphanage attendants:

I think we can probably find plenty of art of knights in armor with 
chest insignia.
Not really.  Knights put their heraldry on their shields.
But they sometimes wear a piece of cloth over the armor, that has some 

I guess the problem there is that all I can picture is movies, so it 
maynot be accurate, and may actually have been influenced by Superman 
rather than the reverse.

Right.  Any artwork produced post Superman might be influenced by 
Superman, which is why I went to The Fairie Queen.  :)
Oh right, tabards.
Ack.  A bit of confusion here.  For some reason the first story in
Action Comics began midway through.  The complete story was published
in the first issue of Superman, where a two-page origin piece shows the
Kents (John and Mary) finding the rocket and going to the orphanage, an
then instructing young Clark that he has to fight evil and so on. 
Clark is later shown standing at the Kents' graves.  That's what I was
thinking of but, no, none of that is in Action.

Likely so.
Ah.  Got it.  I feel much better now; it's not like you to miss 
something like that.  :)
That sounds good, real obvious now that you mention it, but not something 
that came to mind reading the previous post.

They need to standardize that shit. Superman, Spider Man, there's no
It's Spiderhyphenman
In article

Spider-Man.  I don't know why they used a hyphen, but they did, and so
we're stuck with it.  Same goes with Ant-Man.  There's Animal Man,

Another variant: NoMan, the body-swapping T.H.U.N.D.E.R. agent.  No
space or hyphen.
And Piltdown Man.
"Does whatever a Piltdown can"
Last Man
Nowhere Man
Danger Man
Herbie Popnecker... the Fat Fury.....
best superhero, ever!!!!!!!!
Spider-Man had a hyphen because back in the early sixties, Marvel (or at
least Stan Lee) was more concerned with avoiding charges of trademark
infringement by DC than they were a decade later.
Phooey.  You never heard of Photoshop?
Sure, attack him on a peripheral issue, his ability to spell, rather than 
his understanding of the situation.

That's not a spelling error.  He just plain got the name wrong. 
Perhaps he was thinking of the Roto-Rooter Man.
In the movie his old man sent it to him pre mortem.
In most versions his mother makes it out of baby blankets found in the 
rocket--hence it has Kryptonian invulnerability. In the recent movies he 
seems to conjure it up with his Kryptonian powers, as does Supergirl. 
(Had to keep up with Captain Marvel for quick changing, I guess.) In 
Smallville it was supplied by Jor-El. 

If your mother was making you a costume, would she make you look like a 
circus acrobat?
In the more modern comics (but not necessarily the current ones), Ma
patterned the costume after Kryptonian streetwear she'd seen in a
rocket-induced vision.
One thing I regretted about Smallville is that they never got into the 
issue of how much wear and tear his regular clothing would experience 
when he zipped around at super speed.
The if cheese could glow...
I kind of doubt that anyone (with any education at all) believes it 
literally, but there are plenty of people who flip out if you dare to pluck 
a single line from the bible and question it...even if they know that you 
are right.  The offense isn't in questioning the Moon's luminance, but in 
daring to suggest that anything written in the Bible is inaccurate.  People 
know it isn't accurate, but they don't want such ideas spoken allowed, 
especially with impressionable young minds within earshot.  The longer into 
one's life that the fallacies of the Bible can be hidden, the more likely 
the person is to be indoctrinated successfully.
So there's something in the Bible about Moonglow?
day and the lesser light to govern the night.  He also made the stars.

Apparently Bill Nye paused to comment that the moon isn't actually a light 
source and that the sun is just another star.  That set off some audience 

...or were you making an inquiry as to whether or not the Bible had 
references to the Marvel Comic character, Moonglow?
I read a cool interpretation of the two lights bit not long ago in 
which, in a typically skiffy way, the first light mentioned in Genesis 
(before the sun was created) was a reference to the Big Bang, with the 
skiffy premise being that there were those involved in the backstory of 
the Bible who also had ancient knowledge of said Big Bang.

All I know is that, as a young kid, I stumped a few people when I asked 
what that "first day" light source was. (Our sun and moon and the stars 
all came about on Day Four, according to Genesis, meaning that the 
earlier "Let there be light" light was ... something else.)
I'm actually surprised that this would not occur immediately to anyone
reading it.  "The earth was without form and void" sounds like there
was pretty much nothing.

Genesis, if you give it some poetic license for being a gazillion
years old, can be read to come reasonably close to describing the
creation. I mean, you can't really have the plants living before the
sun was formed and there's a lot of it that people just have no idea
what it actually said, originally.  I mean, there are two things of
"waters" and one of them is over heaven and one underneath.
Right, but my point isn't about the void; it's about the fact that there 
were apparently *two* light sources that came about days apart, and I 
think that a lot of people just combine them into one and consider it 
all to apply to the sun. Meanwhile, the alternative explanation has all 
sorts of skiffy potential.

It probably all comes down to separate narratives being combined into 
one final document by an editor who should have been fired.
The creation stories in Genesis (there's at least 2), were synopses of 
the creation stories from other cultures. Sumerians, Egyptians and so on.
That's what I meant by separate narratives being combined into one.
Fair enough. But Mason's dead-on about the Egyptians. To call them 
monotheistic on the basis of the brief reign of Akhenaten is like 
calling the U.S. a lost cause on the basis of the brief tenure of Jimmy 
Right, and I didn't call them monotheistic....
I see that this has more or less shaken out in my absence. :)
I just have learned not to get drawn into "discussions" like this.

I'll just say, as I read your post, that seemed to me to be exactly
what you said.  But it doesn't matter.  We apparently all agree that
they were not.
Because it was.

This is USENET. We can't all agree, dammit.
Yes we can.
No. We can't. And don't argue with me. This is USENET, dammit.
Oh, I see your point.  Okay, you're right.  Anim is, too.
You can't change your mind or concede like that. This is USENET, dammit.
Am not.
Well, neither is Jim, but I was trying to be positive and supportive.
You can't be positive and supportive here. This is USENET, dammit. Nice 
job with the lying bit, though. :)
You're both wrong.
Yes we are!
Sorry, maybe you thought equating the Bible creation stories which seem 
to indicate a single god, with the creation stories of other cultures 
also meant the other cultures were monotheistic. I meant no such thing.
Wow...she doubled down, flat out daring Mason to requote what she actually 
wrote so as to watch her squirm.
So what did I write that indicated egyptians were monotheistic 
throughout their history?
Does your newsreader not allow you to read posts more than once?
Yes, I can go look at all posts in a thread. But what I wrote is quoted 
above. Here - I'll quote it for you again...

"The creation stories in Genesis (there's at least 2), were synopses of 
the creation stories from other cultures. Sumerians, Egyptians and so on."

So where did I say the egyptians were monotheistic?
Go read the thread since what you wrote is not quoted above.
I don't have time. But nowhere did I claim they were monotheistic. In 
fact, I know I wrote that they weren't.
Sure you did.
Proove it.
As Mason said, there is no point in playing that game since you will just 
claim that what you wrote isn't what you said.  The proof is there for 
anyone with the ability to look at the thread to read.
Fine, then let the others decide.
I'll decide:,Put it to bed. Who cares? You sound like kids on the 

And again, in poytheistic systems, creation would still be handled by 
just one of the gods. Imagine the alternative...

"Zeus old boy, that looks good, but I could do a better job on the Sun"
"OK,fine, Apollo, you do that. And Selene, you take the moon. No, not 
there! That's too far to get to by tossing magnets up."
"Pops, can I do volcanoes?"
"OK,l but work on it with Hades, because he'll have to manage what's 
under them..."

No wonder the world is such a mess.
Oh for the love of Mike.  Here.
Give a woman a fish, and you feed her for a day...
Ahhh. Thank you Mason. I was thinking of Akhnaton when I wrote that, but 
otherwise they weren't. I need to write a little more clearly or with 
more detail.
I haven't made any attempt to prevent anyone from reading what you wrote.
Yup, just confirming where some of them come from.
You're just showing anti-Judean bias.  There are similarities between
the three, especially the Sumerian version, but there is no way to
prove one tale actually predated another, or that one was taken from

Actually, Genesis is in ways closer to the Mayan version of creation.
But then, of course, you have people who will swear that North America
was populated by the "lost tribes of Israel".
I thought there's some ancient summerian tablets that are older than the 
oldest known version of the bible.

Mostly in Utah....
AFAIK the Egyptians would be the clear winners for ancient religious
texts, as far as existing written evidence goes.  But it doesn't mean
much, other than that they had invented writing early on, and wrote on
media that would withstand nature for a long time, not to mention we
only know about what we have found.
Unless, of course, they weren't.  Seeing as how neither culture was
Egypt was, both before and after the Jews were there. And creations 
stories don't necessarily have have anything to do with monotheism.
I don't think I ever heard of a creation story that involved teamwork. 
Even with a pantheon of gods, just one of them would have to be given 
credit for creating the universe.
In most multideity religions, there's usually a 'creator' or chief god, 
and lesser gods.
Calling Egypt monotheistic is like saying China was ruled by the Xin
Dynasty.  One ruler tried to impose it for a decade or two, mixed into
*millenia* of florid polytheism.  I'd guess Egypt would take the #1
spot for "most gods by a single country".

And when, exactly, were the Jews there? Scholars around the world are
dying to know.

The one in Genesis necessarily does.
The taoists cover that - wu chi.
I had that at a Korean restaurant once and it made a "big bang" in my
You can't have had it in a Korean restaurant - it's a concept, not food, 
and it's chinese.
Sigh.  A google for 'moon bible' actually autofilled 'light source' and 
there are a lot of hits.

I'm trying to imagine *why* Nye would pause to mention that the moon 
don't glow in the first place.
I have to admit, if I was sitting in an audience and some guy
explained to us that the moon doesn't actually glow, but only reflects
sunlight, I'd misbehave.

My #1 strategy would be to argue with him. Hmm.  "That's not what the
Bible says" is certainly a possibility but I think I could do better.

I guess my first point would be that you can see the moon glow even
when the sun isn't shining :)
I'd bring up my "it's translucent with a lighthouse bulb rotating 
inside" theory; obviously if it were reflecting sunlight, half of it 
wouldn't be dark in the daytime!  In fact, it must be one of them there 
'black bodys' they talk about, and ONLY lit from inside.
That's because it's reflecting the sun on the other side of earth, silly.
Oh, yeah, that's a good one.  And the light, what, goes right through
the earth like a piece of glass?
And she's calling *us* silly!?
There's light in the sky at night, try looking up instead of through the 

Silly wabbits...
No, it's far enough from earth that you can see it when you look in the 
sky. At night. When the sun isn't shining.
Hahaha.  Good one!
God, it's like artificial electricity all over again.  Look out!  Suzeeq 
is in a flat spin!
Of course.  The two most abundant elements on Earth are Oxygen and Silicon. 
Put them together and they make glass.
And here I thought nitrogen was more abundant.
In the atmosphere, yes.  But oxygen is much more reactive than nitrogen 
so more of it is in the earth's crust.  I think iron is more abundant 
than silicon, but most of it is in the core.
I've never seen figures on the entirety of earth, from core to
atmosphere.  Of course, there's one small problem which is that it's
difficult to get core samples for analysis :)

Anyway, the most abundant element would have to be either iron or
oxygen.  Oxygen is  the primary element in the mantle.

The big surprise would be magnesium, which is over 20% of the mantle.
So by volume, at least, it would be in the top four or five.
Hey, man, I said 'two most abundant elements on Earth', not 'in Earth and 
not 'in the atmosphere'.  I'm standing by my statement that the correct 
answer is oxygen and silicon and that that is why the Earth is see-through, 
just like glass.
The really really true story is that they walked out because he made a 
crack about the Bible's scientific inaccuracy.
That, I can understand.  Scientists talking about the Bible, or
preachers talking about science, are pretty much co-equal reasons for
an immediate exit.
It might depend on whether the good townspeople, "audience", had their 
torches ready to light, or not.

Given the audience (we are talking Waco Texas) they probably thought that 
the light from the moon was being reflected from their torches, not from the 
By "actual scientists" do you mean creationists and climate-change 
deniers? *I* could take on most of them.

Disclaimer: Nye is a Cornell Engineering grad, so I'm prejudiced.
Supergirl's NONO.