Omg, you didn't indicate your goal posts.
I think you twisted what was said. It was stated that man can not solve problems that you would have to be a God to solve.
It was believed we would never fly, that we would enter space, never visit the moon. It was thought there was no means to save someone from certain diseases, could not repair an ailing heart, a failing liver. It was thought we could not do many things, but we're doing them. Perhaps you should review the story of Icarus, with the father asserting the limitations of man. What I find most interesting, is that this story is flawed at a fundamental level. It asserts that the wax used to glue the wings together melted as Icarus flew closer to the Sun, when in fact as he flew closer to the Sun, he entered into a higher atmosphere, which would have been cooler and less likely to result in the wax melting.
It is these misunderstandings, these errors in facts, that result in the belief there is a limit to what Man can do. But, as we have seen countless times, Man has the mental capacity to learn, grow, adapt, and overcome. Knowledge, resources, and time are what is required for Man to "solve" problems. Do remember, a mere high school student recently found a means to detect, and treat, a particular type of cancer.
I reviewed your arguments Lotus, and they all stem from a review of science fiction and the assumption that such things are not possible because of a time constraint. But we don't have a time constraint to achieve all things. Perhaps you should review earlier episodes of Star Trek and see that we have, in fact, replicated and even surpassed many of the technologies posed in those earlier episodes. But let's get things clear here, science fiction doesn't abide by the physical laws, and so they present things that are simply not possible, at least in the manner they are presented. But that doesn't mean we cannot replicate the effects, the end result.
It has already been achieved, teleportation. Moving inorganic matter from one point to another, it has been done. It did not follow the conventions of Star Trek, but instead followed a different convention, but there has been success in performing something many people thought pure science fiction. It has already been achieved, invisibility. Still being developed, no doubt, but it has been acheived, and thus demonstrating that what we thought "would have to be a God to solve" has turned into things Man can solve.
If a boat is filling with water at 500 gallons per minute. There is a pump that will drain it at 100 gallons per minute. Will the great mind say "do it"? Or would he point out the obvious?
The obvious being what? That the boat is going to sink? So is the obvious that you should sink with the boat? No Lotus, you're approaching this from a linear perspective, and thus your arguments are flawed.
Man should solve the problems he can (never said be lazy or do not try). He should know his limits and accept the things that are beyond his means. And he should be "smart" enough to know the difference.
Climate change is something Man can address, but has repeatedly failed to act on. It is this that is the real problem. It is not the capability, but the will. There is a wealthy element that finds short-term profit in denying the facts and they have found that posing doubt in the minds of others is an effective means of ensuring inaction.
Ultimately, the only valid argument you present is that of time constraints. It is time constraints that may result in our failures. If we are under the gun, limited by time to achieve a result, we may indeed fail to achieve said result, particularly if there are Machiavellian actions posed by entities
(organizations, corporations, political parties) with alternative agendas.