Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[Crossless2.0]

That ark just keeps needing to get bigger ...

Meanwhile, we continue to await those stowage stability calculations.

The future of life on Earth depends on those figures being right!

[JackRussell]

Well Morton's Demon must have been on the ark, definite signs of the persistence of that beastie.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Well Morton's Demon must have been on the ark, definite signs of the persistence of that beastie.

Had to look up Morton's demon. Yep. Maybe it is possible to explain theists like Huggy acting as ignorance filters.

The school of thermo-economics describes people and businesses as MEPUs (Maximum Entropy Production Units). In an economic system we buy goods which then get used and disposed of, or refined and sold on, each step requiring usable energy leading to more waste.

Theists like Huggy could be units which function to maximise the production of ignorance. Information flows along until it meets a MIPU like Huggy and only the information that propagates ignorance is let through and passed on. These then provide the raw ideas needed to form memes like intelligent design which then spread throughout an ignorant population as if it were a living organism.

Of course as with Maxwell's demon there needs to be a cost in performing the filtering. The increase in ignorance comes at a cost of progress. It would be consistent with the idea of religious belief as a behaviour altering parasite. Religious belief carries a cost for the believer by changing its behaviour to spend time, effort and money to propagate the parasitic meme to others.

MIPUs like Huggy are not just wanting to spread the infection to new hosts but to help prepare the environment for new infections to occur. You can make an argument that businesses are a higher form of life made up of people that are also alive, in the same way that humans are made up of whole populations of bacteria which are also alive, and  also like how cells contain living smaller cells that were subsumed much earlier on in evolutionary history. In the same way Huggy is part of a collective of parasites. Like a swarm of bees make up a super organism, Huggy is part of a super parasite (a church) trying to gain control of host societies.

[Huggy Bear]

LoL

That's quite an elaborate little tapestry of denial you've woven for yourself.

All I've asked was for you to simply show where science disproves the scripture, and you failed miserably.

You claimed that there is a size limit to wooden ships, implying that the ark exceeded thus size, when historically there were ships much bigger. Not to mention your point about genetic diversity...

You believe an asteroid hit the earth and somehow killed off everything but a few animals, so basically they can survive an extinction level event, but what they definitely can't survive is a low gene pool?

That being said, don't be so hard on yourself, I wreck arguments on a regular basis, think of it as a learning experience.

[KevinM1]

Huggy, Minimum Viable Population is a thing. 14 animals per 'kind' isn't nearly enough to make a population viable. The MVP for most animals is in the thousands, as it accounts for inbreeding deficiencies, disease, existing predators, availability and quality of food sources, other potential environmental hazards, etc.

The Ark would need to hold tens of thousands of animals in order to repopulate the planet, and it would take far, far longer than several thousand years for the repopulation (and biodiversity we see today) to happen.

It's a myth, and a poor one at that.

[Amarok]

Huggies  still pushing that narrative 

Read my print moron

IT WOULD NOT WORK !!!

[KevinM1]

LoL

That's quite an elaborate little tapestry of denial you've woven for yourself.

All I've asked was for you to simply show where science disproves the scripture, and you failed miserably.

You claimed that there is a size limit to wooden ships, implying that the ark exceeded thus size, when historically there were ships much bigger. Not to mention your point about genetic diversity...

You believe an asteroid hit the earth and somehow killed off everything but a few animals, so basically they can survive an extinction level event, but what they definitely can't survive is a low gene pool?

That being said, don't be so hard on yourself, I wreck arguments on a regular basis, think of it as a learning experience.

LMAO, you haven't wrecked anything here. Not even close.

The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs? It didn't leave a handful of animals to repopulate the planet. There were still thousands, if not millions, of animals left. An extinction event != almost everything was killed. Just that entire species were. The dinosaurs? Yeah, killed (not necessarily immediately (see: modern birds and their evolutionary history)). The small mammals that were living at the time? Not so much.

Did you sleep through science class? Was it simply not taught in your area? This shit is well known, and you're simply embarrassing yourself at this point.

[Crossless2.0]

That being said, don't be so hard on yourself, I wreck arguments on a regular basis, think of it as a learning experience.

I routinely fuck supermodels.

[KevinM1]

Here, Huggy, educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous...tion_event

Note that even 75% extinction means a ton of life still existed. We're talking, what, billions of life forms remaining? Trillions (plants, microbes, smaller animals)? Your idea that merely a handful remained is laughable.

[I_am_not_mafia]

LoL

That's quite an elaborate little tapestry of denial you've woven for yourself.

I wasn't being entirely serious. Although admittedly seeing religion as a behaviour altering parasite does explain a lot.

All I've asked was for you to simply show where science disproves the scripture, and you failed miserably.

Yeah your fingers in your ears routine is growing boring now.

You claimed that there is a size limit to wooden ships, implying that the ark exceeded thus size, when historically there were ships much bigger. Not to mention your point about genetic diversity...

Neither of which you have refuted. Nor are you even trying. You have deliberately ignored the points people have made about the fact that larger ships could have been built that were not sea-worthy but only for use on gentle rivers. Hence the comments about you filtering out any information that refutes your assertions. And even if there were ships 600 feet long instead of 400 ft with relatively modern technology, it still wouldn't be large enough.

You believe an asteroid hit the earth and somehow killed off everything but a few animals, so basically they can survive an extinction level event, but what they definitely can't survive is a low gene pool?

Why assume that a global population of small mammals and seed eating dinosaurs was necessarily either reduced to two (or seven) specimens each or had to die out?  If a species had the means to survive for whatever reason, even if the population was decimated or even reduced to 1%, then there could still likely be enough surviving members of the species to maintain sufficient genetic diversity.

Whereas we know the physical constraints of a wooden ark. We know about seas and the flexibility of wood. We can demonstrate the minimum viable population. We know about the requirements for eating and removal of waste. We know that there are predators and prey that need to be kept separate.

That being said, don't be so hard on yourself, I wreck arguments on a regular basis, think of it as a learning experience.

I see you have your own brand of humour too.