I believe you are mistaken. Quantum Mechanics does not predict additional dimensions; those dimensions are a creation of string theorists attempting to resolve mathematical inconsistencies in QM. A singularity is defined as a point having infinite space-time curvature. The term often is used to mean any point which is undefined or fails to exist as part of a continuous manifold, and is not necessarily infinitesimal.

Your understanding of entropy is flawed as well. Evolution is in no way in conflict with the second law of thermodynamics. The Second Law states that the entropy of a closed system must increase (in fact, the direction of the "arrow of time" itself is typically defined by determining in which direction entropy increases). The Earth, and its species, do not constitute a closed system. Allow me to illustrate with a familiar metaphor:

A watchmaker takes raw metal and glass and creates a device of magnificent complexity and usefulness. Has this violated the Second Law? No, because the watchmaker and his creation are not a closed system. The discarded shards of metal, chipped glass, and the contents of his garbage are all a part of the same system, and were also "created" during his work. His body radiated heat, and he drank water and ate a Slim-Jim, pausing occasionally to take a leak or tend to his mistress.

Do you see how evolution through natural selection takes a small part of a huge system and creates magnificently complex species and interactions? Remember, our planet is bathed in radiation from many sources, most notably the Sun, which is probably more deserving of praise as a creator of life than any God humans have dreamt up.

What are closed and open systems, Audiorigami?

Fiery, you personally may not find it that important, but I think if you follow the news you'll see that there is a very focused campaign to rid America of abortion rights. The entire reason for appointing Alito is his stance on abortion.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/31/scotus.bush/

For example. Read some of the politicians' comments, and observe how Bush protests too much.

Is this a record thread?

Audiorigami,

I like your analogy. However, the part of the ID is played by the watchmaker. Without the intervention of the watchmaker, it is highly unlikely that the watch would have evolved.

This does not prove or disprove anything. I think the origin of a species is infinently easier than the origin of the universe.

You are correct about the dimensions being mathmatical necessities for string theory.

The idea of time not being fixed is what made Einstein come up with the theory of relativity. For time to vary (and it does) the speed of light has to be constant. Astronauts have measured time differences due to velocity resulting from the orbiting of the Earth. In other words, a watch on the ISS runs slower than a watch on Earth.

The idea of time being relative to the observer is something else.

We're talking about time itself not having a boundary. The way we picture it is that for a long time there was nothing, and then one day there was a big bang after which there was everything. And from here, that's what happened: about 15 billion years ago the universe started expanding.

But there was no "before" that. It's not a boundary, in other words.

And the harder you think about it, the more impossible it becomes to fathom.

Exactly what I hoped you'd say. My question is this: if you consider a watch so complex as to require a designer, what do you think about the complexity level of the designer itself? ID fails as a scientific theory because it is fundamentally flawed. Creationists (and IDers are creationists--a rose, by any other name, would still smell as sweet) hiding behind the complexity argument will claim that the myriad species on Earth are too complex to have evolved through natural selection due to environmental pressure and competition, yet will not balk at the concept of a being so complex it is omniscient, omnipresent, and atemporal.

The designer you claim to support is too complex to exist, by your logic, without being designed itself--and who did that, if I may ask?

No one is arguing against the apparent dilation of time and length viz. the Lorentz contractions. The notion of travel at extremely high velocities is a complete mindbender. Check out this amazing demonstration showing how length contraction due to relativistic speeds of travel is actually imperceptible to outside observers! (That is one of the many brilliant explorations of physics on this page, which I advise you to stay the hell away from if you have any work to do, as it will literally make time dilate in the space localized to your desk.)

Lastly, Nick, closed and open are classifications denoting different types of systems. A closed system is wholly self-contained, with no effects propagated to sources outside the system, and no interference coming from outside it either. This is usually only a metaphorical tool, as the only real closed system I'm aware of is our entire universe itself taken as a whole. An open system, on the other hand, is influenced by events and actions outside the system. It's convenient to consider many systems closed for practical purposes, because, for example, the gravitational force exerted by Jupiter on my mixing board is negligible (although full moons seem to cause fader lockup :p ). In the context of the 2nd Law, entropy (the measure of disorder, or unrecoverable energy) is said to always increase in a closed system. In any small part of that closed system, however, taken as a small sample, entropy may in fact increase due to outside effects.

That's a great point!

Audiorigami,

Whoa big fella. I am certainly not a Creationist. I view the two concepts as very different. ID could simply be a little grey man from Mars boinking a Gorilla (no offense Nick).

I am willing to consider anything reasonable that fits with what I can observe or measure. Creation is out.
ID maybe but hard to prove.
Evolution, lots of good science but too many holes to be considered anywhere near complete.

I am working on a new theory called IDvolution.

Tell me some key tenets of Intelligent Design without once referring to evolution. Let's hear some verifiable scientific predictions. It's my opinion that ID merely states the obvious, just as you have. Namely, that the theory of evolution through natural selection is an incomplete explanation of the origin of life or of current species. That is not a hypothesis in any scientific sense of the word--it is merely stating a truism, since no one claims that evolution is complete or explains everything--so again, tell me what constructive claims ID makes in order to attempt to interpret speciation or biogenesis without referring to a creator (because that would make you a creationist) or to evolution (because it does not assert to explain it all). I really am curious, because I have had this conversation with many people, and haven't heard a single one.