Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

From the quote out of Brian Greene's book: "Experimenters never measure an infinite amount of anything. Dials never spin around to infinity. Meters never reach infinity. Calculators never register infinity. Almost always, an infinite answer is meaningless.".
Greene is saying that in the physical world infinity is meaningless. Therefore it seems to me that it could only have meaning in the metaphysical.
As I said, this doesn't prove anything, but the question was asked what could be considered as evidence for the metaphysical and it seems to me that this fits the bill.

I didn't suggest otherwise nor did Greene. All Greene is saying is that right now when the formulas of relativity and QM are combined they come up with an answer that doesn't make sense in a physical way.

He also said this to this particular iussue which isn't quailfied."In practice, the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics rears its head in a very specific way. If you use the combined equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, they almost always yield one answer: infinity. And that's a problem. It's nonsense."Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

He obviously doesn't. The point is that in the world in which he works is physics which comes fromythe same root word as physical. Within that world it doesn't make sense. Therefore if the calculations are correct, (which they may well not be as there is no doubt more to be leartned), then the evidence leads to a non-physical or a metaphysical answer.

Exactly. In the natural world something that is infinite doesn't make sense as Greene points out. Infinity as an answer to either the situation at T=0, or the example of the combining of the equations for QM and Relativity that Greene talks about, may be just because of the fact that we haven't solved the problem yet and there will be another answer. Right now however, the answer is infinity, and it seems to me that this could constitute evidence for something that exists outside of the physical world as we understand it.

I don't agree. Right now science and mathematics provide an answer of inifinity which if correct is not something that is conceivable in our 4 dimensional world.The current science points to something metaphysical. It's evidence of something metaphysical. Is it the final word? No. But it seems to be where we are at right now.

I'm not saying that it isn't wrong but right now the evidence points to something outside the physical. You can only say that it is almost certainly wrong if you discount the possibility of anything outside the physical.

I agree completely I'm repeating myself but you are still asking the question. The answer that scientists consistently come up with when combining GR and QM is infinity. As Greene points out that doesn't fit into our naturalistic world as we experience it. Therefore the evidence, as we currently understand it, points to an answer outside the physical. Absolutely and this may very well be the case again. I'm just pointing out that there is evidence, although I would agree that it is far from conclusive. Out of curiosity can you give me an example, although I don't actually doubt that you are correct? So, when science hasn't been able so far to provide an example you just say that it will some day. Wouldn't that be the same as someone saying that god did it.It looks to me like a "science of the gaps" argument.

Absolutely from a scientific point of view but from a philosophical or theological point of view it could certainly be something to be considered.However, the statement does nothing to make the case that this is any different than the "god of the gaps" argument. Someone might say that because science hasn't found an answer it must be god,(however they define god), whereas the argument here is that although science hasn't yet found an answer it must still have a materialistic answer. Both approaches are depended on one's world view.

Why not? Who would have imagined in 1900 the strange goings on in the world of QM? Who knows what will be uncovered in the future? And of course science should continue to seek a materialistic answer.

I agree, but my point was that what they eventually discovered was completely contradictory to anything that had been anticipated. Look at the trouble Einstein had in coming to terms with it.Besides, I go back to my earlier question of "why not". Your point seems to be that because they haven't discovered something up to now means that they can't discover it in the future. If you work on that basis all scientists should now close up their books and try and find work as accountants.

You still haven't answered the question "why not". Just because that hasn't been an answer found in the past does not mean it won't be found in the future. Well yes. That is the point of the discussion. Right now the answers that they are coming up with appear to point to something that is not of the material world.Sure there is a good chance that will change but I'm merely pointing out where things stand now.

I disagree. Right now the answer just about always comes to infinity. Again, as Greene points out that doesn't make sense as we don't experience infinity in a 4 dimensional world. There are two ways of looking at that. One way, as you point out, is that the application is incorrect and that may very well be the case. The other is that the application is correct and that it points to something other than a purely natural solution. As it stands now it points to something other than a natural solution although that could easily change with new data tomorrow. I am not claiming that "this has to be supernatural". I am merely saying that as of now the evidence points beyond the natural, although I agree it may just be because at this point we don't have enough information. A final conclusion can't be made one way or the other.

You can put it wherever you want. The current evidence points to something beyond the natural. That evidence may or may not be correct or complete.

I really have to take exception to that. The more I have been able to learn about God's creation, including evolution, the more convinced I have become about the truth of my Christian faith. Read Francis Collin's book The Language of God.Let's face it, if Christianity represents an accurate picture of our world then it only holds to reason that it will be consistent with accurate science. I have found nothing about science that contradicts Christianity and as far as evolution is concerned it makes no difference whether God chose to create through an evolutionary process or by some other means. What is important to my Christian faith, (amongst other things of course), is that we are created beings and that the creator is God.In essence, as one of the great Christian minds of the past said, (I can't remember which one right now), we have been given two books in which we can learn about God. One is the Bible and one is his creation. In the end they cannot be in contradiction. There is only one ultimate truth.