Posted: Jun 16, 2019 3:46 am
by Spearthrower
socratus wrote:Doctrine of Creation
===
Creation is a process.
This process can be known by math / physical laws.


Wow, that's convenient confounding! How exactly would we know that creation is anything other than a figment of someone's imagination, then?


socratus wrote:But before to know how this process is going, it needs
to know something about reference frame in which
this process is going.


So in the absence of any evidence or way of describing it, we simply assume it exists... basically, we have to have faith in it?


socratus wrote: because to describe fish it needs
water and to describe animals it needs another
reference frame -- land.


Why do we need to describe fish? Why do we need to describe tautological animals?


socratus wrote:The reference frame has
great influence on physical process.


The 'reference frame' - in Biology known as 'the environment' does indeed have a necessary influence on the evolution of species, but that's at a very elementary level, isn't it?


socratus wrote: Specific
reference frame is the common ground of all specific creations.


So the referee evolved in all types of environment concurrently?


socratus wrote:#
The creation began from simple to complex,


Please define 'simple', please define 'complex'.


socratus wrote:from micro-particles world to microworld.


So the creator was a micro-particle?

Or was the creator more complex than a single micro-particle?

If the latter, then 'creation' didn't begin from simple to complex, did it?


socratus wrote:Then it needs to know: in which reference
frame the micro-particles can exist.


A universe?

socratus wrote:#
Today we know -- micro-particles exist in CERN / LHC .reference frame.
========


So CERN/LHC are the creators?