I recently read about the “Three Body Problem”… which states that circular orbits of planets at a perfect distance around a star goes completely against the laws of physics… which by nature are chaotic (even time is not a constant). Instead gravitational attraction should be extremely random and haphazard… yet we see circular orbits throughout the universe. Yet physicists rationalize this phenomenon when they should know better: The way to achieve an orbit like Earth’s and the other planets in our solar system… is via intentional manipulation.
Then there’s the odds against a single enzyme forming completely by accident: more than the total number of atoms in 10^70 universes (1 in 20^200, to be more precise). Yet we’re to believe two dozen enzymes just magically formed in the same place and same time, in precisely the configuration required, and the magically-resulting cell managed to survive the harsh conditions of pre-life Earth. Seriously?
Sometimes I think evolutionary science is one of the most biased, bigoted, organized con games on Earth. They absolutely deny that there possibly could be an intelligence and power far greater than humans… yet present that the universe can come from absolutely nothing, by total random chance against vastly overwhelming odds. What a pile of steaming pudu.
And the thing is… they know it’s a pile of steaming pudu, but they’ll grasp at anything because they simply don’t want to accept the concept of something far, far more powerful and intelligent than humans, and with ultimate authority.
Fortunately there are many scientists who don’t swallow the poison… and for precisely the reasons above. To quote one biologist: “The universe and life on Earth is far too complex to have happened by accident.”
“Eliminate the impossible, and what is left, however improbable, must be the truth.”
You make valid points about a hypothetical situation. Realistically speaking, we currently have famines in our real world, despite science. We export food to starving countries… where it sits rotting on the docks because the government won’t spring the funds to deliver it to starving people.
And if we’re not overpopulating as you suggest, why would one consider famine as a major problem? The Earth tends to produce bountifully the vast majority of the time. If famine hits in one area (for whatever reason), people can move to another area and survive… as we have for thousands of years.
In any case, I would venture that occasional famine, plagues, etc… are preferable to destruction of the planet and a potential extinction event caused by a generation that has not progressed in wisdom to keep in pace with its technology.
I am not saying we should return to the dark ages. I am saying that moderation and balance in all things is the goal toward which mankind should strive— but (if we look at history even up to modern times) will never achieve on our own. Look at the current situation in the U.S., in Russia, in Israel, and point out where wisdom has prevailed in any aspect of human governance.
Einstein and Asimov both made the same point: Technology sans wisdom is deadly.
I wouldn’t knock hunting and gathering. It puts food on the table and doesn’t destroy the planet. ; )
I’m not sure I agree with the comment about our population being one-tenth or less. It would all depend on how the planet is governed, if land is distributed fairly, and if people have an ounce of common sense.
Under the rule of Christ, that would work fine. But if we’re talking the way we’ve ruled this planet for the last several thousand years… yeah, I’d have to agree with you that we’d either severely overpopulate or underpopulate. Because if there is one thing mankind has proved with all certainty: we can’t govern ourselves worth a spit in a rainstorm.
I recently read about the “Three Body Problem”… which states that circular orbits of planets at a perfect distance around a star goes completely against the laws of physics… which by nature are chaotic (even time is not a constant). Instead gravitational attraction should be extremely random and haphazard… yet we see circular orbits throughout the universe. Yet physicists rationalize this phenomenon when they should know better: The way to achieve an orbit like Earth’s and the other planets in our solar system… is via intentional manipulation.
Then there’s the odds against a single enzyme forming completely by accident: more than the total number of atoms in 10^70 universes (1 in 20^200, to be more precise). Yet we’re to believe two dozen enzymes just magically formed in the same place and same time, in precisely the configuration required, and the magically-resulting cell managed to survive the harsh conditions of pre-life Earth. Seriously?
Sometimes I think evolutionary science is one of the most biased, bigoted, organized con games on Earth. They absolutely deny that there possibly could be an intelligence and power far greater than humans… yet present that the universe can come from absolutely nothing, by total random chance against vastly overwhelming odds. What a pile of steaming pudu.
And the thing is… they know it’s a pile of steaming pudu, but they’ll grasp at anything because they simply don’t want to accept the concept of something far, far more powerful and intelligent than humans, and with ultimate authority.
Fortunately there are many scientists who don’t swallow the poison… and for precisely the reasons above. To quote one biologist: “The universe and life on Earth is far too complex to have happened by accident.”
“Eliminate the impossible, and what is left, however improbable, must be the truth.”