I can't stand baseball and I like soccer (playing at least), I don't know if it's genetic or what, but my son is much the same.

...

No, I don't think there's a gene for that.

While it is perfectly acceptable to use God to fill the holes in knowledge for the time being

is it?

At some point I think we can safely say science and logical reasoning has given humankind enough answers to enough questions that we can safely assume that a god wasn't involved.

Gods have always been in the holes of our knowledge thus far, yes, but they've only been there: in the holes of our knowledge. In our knowledge we find no gods. People do not look in any microscope or telescope and observe "the part where God works". Physics equations don't include a god variable.

Furthermore, it's safe to say that in almost any situation where people have had the technology, opportunity, and determination to gather sufficient data, we have been able to explain most any given phenomena.

I agree with your post save for the above statement. Unfalsifiable ideas have no place in a person's notion of "reality". If it's something one still insists on personally believing, keep it that way: personal. No one else should be negatively affected by one's inability to view reality as we best know it. Children should NOT be taught the personal digressions from common sense their parents are afflicted with. Places of worship do not deserve tax breaks. Silly iron-age reasoning has no business impeding research that could very well save one of our lives.

I realize this is a hopeless argument (we're talking about people that have the ability to explicitly ignore reason here...), and that this question is essentially rhetorical, but exactly how much shit does science need to figure out before religious people realize that filling gaps of knowledge with the supernatural is getting them nowhere? What's so wrong about answering questions with "we don't know yet"? Why can't gaps of knowledge be just that?

They are also truly asking about how massive is a petabyte, for if you fill enough hard drives with helium, surely a petabyte's weight could be negative.

Think so? Something tells me you couldn't put nearly enough helium in a metal hard drive to make up for the weight of the metal.

...But go for it! I'll grab a chair.

...think of the economic stimulation! Jobs everywhere from slowly having to move people a few miles inland, an excellent opportunity to build and house a large percentage of the population in new, green houses that'll do all sorts of... green things, and a compelling event to give governments a good reason to re-do public transportation and high-speed rail lines!

There is a middle way. We'll give it a good go and try to tone down our impact on the planet, but chew on this: humans, and the mammals/birds we keep (not including fish, but dogs, cats, pet birds, cattle, horses, sheep, oxen, goats, chickens, turkeys, ducks, etc.) account for 98% of terrestrial land creatures by mass. Much of the world's land now exists solely to sustain us and our various zoological friends. Maybe... JUST MAYBE, our existence is gonna leave a mark no matter what, by our sheer numbers alone. So try as we may, it just may be too little to matter. But if that's the case, we'll be ok. I refuse to believe that what ever little bit of the climate we cause is because of what we've done since we've known enough to realize what we were doing, so it's no use getting all pissy because we've having a hard time weaning ourselves off of the things that essentially have powered humanity since we knew how to use the stuff.

Maybe there shouldn't be six billion people.

...Of course we're not going to kill anyone. Or neuter them. We just need to make less babies. I won't have a kid, for humanity. Plus, I'm American. We consume upwards of 30 times as much as some peoples around the world. Me not having a kid is gonna save humanity a lot of stuff in the long run.

You're welcome!