Question of biology, evolution and nature's law...?

It's the Gaia hypothesis proposed by James Lovelock

The first guy has no idea what he's talking about.

"Explain how the geologic time column could possibly have been constructed before any radiometric dating method was ever discovered..

in other words, explain how could you possibly know how old the earth and the fossils were before you could date them???"

Radiometric dating is not the only dating method. Ice cores, tree rings, continental drift rates, etc. The formation of the hawaiian islands as the crust moves over a hot spot in the ocean can be measured directly as a result of drift rate, and it matches the date given by radiometric methods. And what about milankovich cycles? They only depend on astronomical movements.

Not to mention there are many different types of radiometric dating, and if they were flawed they would not give results that agree with each other.

Radiometric dating and the age of the earth is not in question by anyone who has made an honest inquiry into the subject.

Early scientific dating methods depended on Newtons Law of Cooling. It was assumed the earth began as a solid ball of molten metal, then calculated the time it took to cool to current temperature. Since they didn't know about radioactive decay providing an ongoing heat source or the inner structure of the earth, they calculated an earth of several hundred million years old, way too short. Later calculations, still before the discovery of radioactivity but taking into account a more accurate representation of the inner composition of the earth arrived at an age of 2 or 3 billion.

Heh, none of that has anything to do with your question, but I hate seeing people misrepresent science because they are either ignorant or dishonest.

Ultimately, the law of conservation of matter. There is only so much carbon available for biomass. You may be referring to Malthusian Law. As extinction is commonplace, there is no absolute law as you have described.

Predator-prey equilibrium is based on some simple concepts. We'll use rabbits and wolves. When there are many rabbits, they have to go farther from their holes to find food. This makes then easy targets for the wolves. As the wolves grow in numbers, there are less rabbits closer to their holes (since there aren't as many rabbits eating the grass near the hole) and more wolves hunting farther afield to catch a rabbit. As the wolves starve, the rabbits come back.

I'm thinking it's called complete and total rubbish, balderdash, fiction.

Most species that have ever existed are now extinct. "Nature" doesn't preserve species. There is no magical "Mother Nature" personification anyway.