Bill Nye The Science Guy

Bill Nye The Science Guy Meme | IT'S  BILL  NYE THE  PHONY  SCIENCE  GUY . . . .WHO'S  PAID  TO  LIE | image tagged in memes,bill nye the science guy | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
14,725 views, 199 upvotes, Made by redhead292 4 weeks ago memesbill nye the science guy
Bill Nye The Science Guy memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
17 ups, 1 reply
I DON'T ALWAYS CLAIM TO BE A SCIENTIST, BUT WHEN I DO I'M ACTING | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
WORLDS BEST ACTOR OF 2008 | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups
BREAKOUT ROLE SPEED WALKER | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Heel, toe, heel, toe
reply
17 ups, 2 replies
. | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
7 ups
Exactly my friend, people who choose to deny science just because they don't like SJWs should really get their head screwed on straight.
reply
11 ups
The Most Interesting Man In The World Meme | I’M NOT REALLY A SCIENTIST BUT I PLAY ONE ON TV | image tagged in memes,the most interesting man in the world | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
11 ups, 3 replies
I feel sorry for those who insist on thinking that SCIENTIST and SCIENCE GUY mean the same thing, because they don't.
reply
3 ups
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
This coming from people who insist we are "science deniers" while believing there are more than two genders.
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups
:)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
He must not watch Big Bang Theory. Sheldon doesn't think much of engineers.
reply
0 ups
In one episode, Bill Nye guest stars as a celebrity rival of Professor Proton. Sheldon starts hanging out with Bill Nye just to get to Professor Proton.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
:)
reply
2 ups
Well... I approve. His comedy is pretty funny
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
reply
4 ups
:)
reply
1 up
The planet is billions of years old, how does someone sound unintelligent when they say that?
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
The public misidentified him as a scientist, and he has gleaned celebrity from their mistake. Not that there is anything wrong with celebrity, but Mr. Nye has done notably little to correct the public assumption; instead he has used that celebrity to endorse popular modern scientific theories and as well, certain political agendas. Not that everyone doesn't have the constitutional right to develop and/or use a media persona for whatever reason they deem fit, e.g. "Colonel Sanders" of KFC fame. The difference is that Harlan David Sanders did not use his persona in an effort to lead people into holding any particular geo/political belief system. When all is said and done, an actor is an actor, whether the product you are selling is science or fried chicken. Btw, Nye holds a degree in Mechanical Engineering, which is a laudable field of expertise, and one some may feel is more vital and needed in society than acting.
reply
[deleted]
10 ups, 3 replies
All eloquently put, norsegreen, but Mr. Nye has been very successful as an engineer, actor, and science teacher. After decades of doing it, he is much more knowledgeable than I (and perhaps you) as a scientific generalist. How would you stand up in a one-on-one scientific debate with him? One shouldn't mistake his sometime goofy public persona as making him any less competent at explain or advocating for science. Is he a scientist? To the extent that he thinks about science and formulates his own opinions on it, he is. You don't need a degree to be one. Is he trying to persuade the public that particular scientific views are more valid than others? Sure, but that's one of the many things that scientists do. If his scientific views don't match up with yours, that doesn't make him a charlatan. I imagine that Bill Nye has political views, but in watching him over the years, his main motivations appear (to me) to be personal and scientific, not political.
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
The sad idea you have that Bill Nye's motivations aren't political, reveals your own bias.
reply
[deleted]
1 up
I'm one of the least biased persons you'd ever meet. you could analyze more thoughtfully before concluding.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Would you explain to us WHY THEY ARE political?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Pick an opinion and I'll tell you why.
reply
1 up
I've only watched his one YouTube vid on the relative size of the Solar System, and I've never watched him on TV, so I don't know what his opinions are.....that's why I'm asking you!
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
*explaining
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
You forget Bill Nye got his ass beat in a debate by a creationist.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Ken Ham is a moron. He couldn't beat a fifth grader in a scientific debate.
reply
0 ups
That means Bill Nye is a super-moron, right? After all, losing to someone you consider a moron means Nye has to be exponentially more dumb. . .
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
I'll have to watch the debate sometime this weekend to see whether I agree with you. It's certainly possible to lose a debate by being a poor or simply inexperienced debater. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that your claim of Nye getting his ass beat by a creationist is a bit biased. ( :
reply
2 ups
It is. I read the debate ;)
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Nope.

Nye loses badly. Doesn't matter experienced or inexperienced - Liberals bestow upon Nye nearly god-like status that Nye's word cannot be doubted, even though Nye is not a climate scientist just a mere engineer. Therefore, by the standards Liberals set AND MAINTAIN, there is precisely zero excuse for Nye to even look bad.

There really is no excuse for Nye not having mopped the floor with Ham.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
by that argument, Johnny, it's lucky thing for Ham that people don't heap anything like that level of confidence on whatever Mr. Ham says. so he has plenty of reason to look bad, if I follow your argument. ( :
reply
5 ups
reply
5 ups
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
It's so true!
P.S: I think he believes his own lies.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Like Trump. Except Trump is president
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
OH really, would you be so kind as to tell me the lies that Trump believes? Also, Bill Nye believes his own lies about global warming, more than two genders, that pot is good for you, and so on.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
You must be on pot to come up with that comment
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
Oh really, that's an excuse that liberal idiots would make up. Did you even take the time to tell me the so called lies that Trump believes in? No, you didn't, and do you know why? Well, the reason is is because you don't know yourself. At least I know what Bill Nye does. Of course, a liberal would also deny the fact without any truth to back up the statement. All of those things I said earlier Bill Nye has said himself, both on his new show "Bill Nye Saves the World," and on separate interviews. Do some research, it's not that hard.
P,S, Are you a troll?
reply
5 ups
Politics in America has become religion. Evidence, facts do not matter now, it just what you believe to be true.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
The reason that the Republicans are fine with Trump as pres. is because they want to make government seem worse than it actually is, so less people trust the government (the Edelman Trust Barometer says only 1/3 of Americans trust the government today to do their jobs, that's falling 14 points from when Obama was pres.). The Republicans want the government to seem worse than it is because they think that private institutions can do things better and become more profitable. Some want to privatize the post office because they see it as losing money, so they privatize mail service and make people pay more. A bill actually in front of congress is to privatize air traffic control towers at airports, which would give commercial aircraft an advantage over civilian aircraft. And net neutrality is yet another example; the evidence goes on and on, and I don't see showing evidence as trolling thank you very much.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Actually, big government is a bad thing. If the government controls everything, then that said country would not be a country of freedom. People would not be able to own anything, and that includes, land, food, and money. Sound familiar... Well, if you said yes, that is because that is communism. We republicans are not purposely trying to make government worse than it already is, but try to give power to the people. That is why we republicans like Trump, it is because he is for the needs of the people, not his own power. He didn't have to run for the presidency, he could have kept on doing his show, "The Apprentice," running his hotels, golf courses, etc. He could have traveled the world, or stay in his expensive homes and rest. Instead he ran for the presidency, and risked everything. People called him names, he lost colleagues, he gave up his business, and he even risked assignation. If you were not aware, while he was running one guy went behind him with a knife and tried to stab him. Also, even if what you said is true, prioritizing commercial aircraft over civilian aircraft would open up more jobs. All's that I am trying to say is that big government is bad. Every time this is happened to a country the said country has collapsed. The USSR, Cuba, Nazi Germany, etc. Only in rare cases. You still seem like a troll because someone like you could not possibly be serious.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
what's your favorite ice cream?
reply
0 ups
What?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/10/president-trump-has-made-more-than-2000-false-or-misleading-claims-over-355-days/?utm_term=.cdbd4de04b25
reply
1 up, 1 reply
LOL citing a Libtard rag as biased against Trump as possible as the Washington Compost as your proof.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups
Well said. In science, the only true authorities are evidence and logic
reply
2 ups
excellent!
reply
6 ups
He used to say that gender is determined by your chromosomes, but there's more money in saying that gender is a spectrum.
reply
6 ups
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Charlatan for sure.
reply
[deleted]
6 ups
why for sure?
reply
4 ups
GMOs are safe
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
It is a shame that in American now, being ignorant is celebrated. The culture of dumbing down and rejection of overwhelming evidence is seen as the new normal. Listen to Americans reject evolution is as sad as it gets
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Actually, many of the people who do not believe in evolution or other lies spread by mainstream science do not reject evidence, but rather demand it. I cannot speak for everyone, but I myself believe the scientific community should be held to a higher standard. Much that they say is believed at face value simply because "scientists" said it. This is just as foolish as the people who when asked why they believe the Bible reply by quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 or by saying "I just have faith." Believing scientists even when they don't have evidence only increases gullibility, which will inevitably lead to ignorance.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Every time I hear an evolution-denier demand evidence, they reject whatever evidence is offered to them, then claim they have not been given any.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
There are only two pieces of evidence used to support evolution, and both of them are open to multiple interpretations, with the evolutionary interpretation being among the weaker of the possibilities from a logical perspective.

The two pieces of evidence are these:
1: physical and/or genetic similarities between creatures
2: adaptation within species

As for the first one, it hardly proves anything. One could argue that it suggests a common ancestor, but a common Designer also fits the evidence quite well.

As for the second, while small changes within kinds are very much real and undeniable, they are limited in nature. Adaptation occurs when pieces of genetic information, which are already in the genome of a species, become more prevalent within the population due to environmental factors which favor certain traits over others. There is no new information involved in this process. In fact, information is often lost in adaptation, because certain genes are copied at the expense of others.

The only situation in which creatures gain new genetic information (which is required for a creature of one kind to change into a fundamentally new kind of creature) is through mutations. Nearly every mutation, however, is harmful.

Now, if you have some other kind of evidence, I will gladly consider it. I do not want to be the sort of person who is so afraid of being wrong that they never consider opinions they disagree with
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Not quite true, you missed out many other avenues of evidence. I'll keep it simple.

Anatomy. Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).
Molecular biology. DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.
Biogeography. The global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.
Fossils. Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that are related to present-day species.
Direct observation. We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short life cycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).

The evidence, if you study it, is overwhelming. That's the good thing about science, is you can go and check for yourself, (well unless you need a CERN faciltiy to look into sub atomic particles), but you can't verify anything in the Bible or the Koran.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
I applaud you for taking the time to go into these various lines of evidence. It really does show thoroughness. That said, many of these lines of evidence fit into the two categories I've already mentioned.

The anatomy and molecular biology lines fit into the "similarities between species" category. I do admit that a common ancestor would explain such evidence, but the evidence lends itself just as much towards being explained by a common Designer.

The direct observation line of evidence refers to "microevolution", which I admit is a veritably proven phenomenon. However, microevolution (change within a kind) has never been properly linked to macroevolution (change into a new kind). The pesticide-resistant insects are simply using a different combination of the information already available within the genome of the species. It is similar to when a mechanic takes certain tools from their shed and puts it in their belt based on what sort of job they're going to do.

As for fossils, they do not tell us as much as we think they do. The only things that can be absolutely known about a creature based on its fossils are what it was generally shaped like, the fact that it died, and the fact that its remains were rapidly buried with sediment and water. We cannot know from fossils alone whether or not a creature had offspring or what its descendants looked like generations later (there are a few cases where a fossil holds its fossilized offspring within it, but the young are either in a developmental stage or bare striking resemblances to their parents).

I will admit that I do not know much about bio-geography, so feel free to correct me if my understanding of it is blatantly wrong. The distribution of organisms across the world could be attributed to mass migration during the shifting post-flood climate, and the adaptations of island species again is mere microevolution, not macro.

Most of these lines of evidence can, in-fact, be explained by evolution. I am not afraid to admit that. However, a simple logical distinction must be made to clarify the relationship between evidence and explanations. Evidence and hypotheses follow an "if... then..." relationship. If evolution is true, then we would expect to find similarities between creatures. A simple study of Boolean logic will show you that the truth of a conclusion (the "then" part) does not necessarily imply the truth of its hypothesis (the "if" part)
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Anatomy and molecular biology are two different things. For example the closest living relative to the hippo using molecular biology is actually whales. Not many people would be looking for that link using just anatomical observations, but DNA gives us the proof. All fascinating stuff.
reply
0 ups
debating memers welcome - let me hear Your thoughts !
to join the debate enter the comment section
imgflip.com/i/23vo81
reply
0 ups
You are right that anatomy and molecular biology are two different things, but at the end of the day they both boil down to the premise of "similarities=common ancestor" (which is not necessarily true). I do appreciate your determination to keep terms straight, though. It does help to avoid confusion
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Continuing because my long post got cut-off by the character limit...

The biggest weakness of the evolutionary hypothesis is that it absolutely requires the existence of a beneficial way for a species to gain completely new genetic information. There is no such mechanism known to occur naturally. Most people cite "natural selection" as the cause of evolution, but natural selection can only select from what naturally occurs. It kills off those who are ill-suited to their environments, and rewards those who already have the proper gene combination. It is the "quality control" of nature's factory. Quality control turns away every item and part which does not meet the requirements asked of it, but it does not tell a car factory to start making airplanes.
reply
0 ups
i.imgflip.com/23vo81.jpg (click to show)
let me hear Your thoughts - link above.
reply
4 ups
reply
4 ups
reply
3 ups
I'm guessing OP is a huge fan of Fox News
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Is that not what he does anymore? I can’t image you would be mad at that. I haven’t watched him in 25 years so I honestly don’t know.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Lol he's become a "political figure" now.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Oh great another actor telling us their political views.
reply
1 up
What's worse is that he doesn't just give them as his own views, but that he passes them off as if they're scientifically proven.
reply
3 ups
this Netflix show he is doing has totally destroyed his career (not that he had one in the first place)
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
How did you know I posted a few Harry Potter memes?
reply
7 ups
him: Bill Nye: college graduate, scientist and TV personality. RH292: Memer who disagrees with logic.
reply
2 ups
reply
4 ups
Still more capable of telling the truth than the President... and the minister at a church.
reply
0 ups
reply
1 up
billy nye is still pretty neato
reply
0 ups
I second that
reply
0 ups
true but only the netflix vertion
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Wow, what a good generation of people that Generation Z is, wow becoming the most conservative generation since the world war 2 generation totally does not show that this generation is one of the most sheep-like generations ever, NOT!
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Trying to see how many times you can reasonably use the word generations in a sentence? LOL
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
To the point that they call themselves gen z, seriously I get it they don't like the SJWs, but they have to at least except that they're tail end millennials. Back a few years ago they called the millennials people born from 1981-2001 or 2004. I think it's a good idea to keep it that way, and just because some of the tail end gen yers have become so conservative, does not mean we should just change their generation.
reply
0 ups
i.imgflip.com/23vo81.jpg (click to show)
debating members welcome- let me hear Your thoughts !
imgflip.com/i/23vo81
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
Absolutely ha ha
reply
1 up
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Lies are better than no thighs
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up
Upvote!
Flip Settings
Bill Nye The Science Guy memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
IT'S BILL NYE; THE PHONY SCIENCE GUY . . . .WHO'S PAID TO LIE
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back