Learning Forum?

I am working on a thread about relative dating but I don't think it really belongs in a science forum. I really want the discussion to be a learning type of thread where there is no "debate" per se. I feel that relative dating might be a good area that E's and C's can talk and learn about without having to talk about the age of the earth. I thought that maybe "Boot Camp" might be a good forum, using it for a different purpose then its original intent which was to rehability troublesome users.Where might a science based thread that is not a debate go?

I have some time because I am waiting on permission to use some images. Any thoughts on this? Where would a pure learning thread go?

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Maybe others are as confused as I am about what you intend here. At least part of the reason for debating is so that we can question what others say in order to have it better clarified. To me, that seems an important part of learning.

I was just trying to think of an issue that everyone could agree upon. Relative dating works regardless of age so I thought it would be fun to do a thread on that but not as a debate since there really is nothing to argue about with regards to that. It is more of a science lesson who just might not know the terminology or how it is used. Also, a common ground so to speak so we might actually have a productive place from where to continue more actually controversial topics.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Hi,Jazz, think you might be preaching to the converted here. The unconverted scorn science (till they can`t put off that operation any longer). By relative dating, do you mean say, radioactive dating vis-a-vis dendrochronology, ice cores, etc.?

Speaking of learning, what might be the best way to jump into this forum? There seems to be a good rule system in place and with calls for evidence and what not it's kind of daunting. Not to mention a new thread seems to have 3 pages of replies by the first minute. Any suggestions for a newcomer?Thanks,V

Hi Verotica,Welcome to EVC. You're right--there's lots of content to read here, discussions can get pretty intense, and there's some pretty serious scientists here.With that said... this is a place where people of all backgrounds should be able to ask questions, post comments, learn about evolution, creation, and how issues that arise between them can be resolved.Sometimes newcomers open a new thread in the "Coffee House" forum just to say hi, introduce themselves, and talk about what their interest is in coming to EvC. I'd suggest you do that; once you let people know what aspects of evolution and creation you're interested in, and if you have any specific goals here, then we can point you towards threads that might interest you (to post in or to read), and to generally say "hi" and welcome you here.Once you get something out there, I'm sure you'll get plenty of help from the cast of characters we have here. In the meantime, you may want to take a look at the "Post of the Month" forum--a place where we nominate posts each month as an example of what we think are good posts.You may also want to check the forum guidelines before posting, to see what the general rules are around here. You can get there by following the link at the bottom of my signature.Thanks, and I hope you enjoy your time here!

---

Hi,Vero and welcome. Just dive in where you feel comfortable or where you have something to add. Don`t be put off by the threatening demeanours as most here are pussycats at heart

Hi Jazzns,I may be misunderstanding you. If you mean you wish to avoid the "spirit of debate"...that's pretty difficult to do. I've had a few recent discussions where I was really just trying to get the "opponent's" view (although that's not your purpose, I'm sure). A few times, I just re-iterated the thought "I'm not trying to debate here...yadda yadda yadda".This IS evolution VERSUS creationism, after all.Your topic will hardly lend itself to non-debate without some effort, either. Some are old-earth creationists. They won't have a problem with relative dating OR absolute dating. But YECs like me will have a problem with both types of dating...i.e., we'll want to get all debate-y about it. And you OECs and OEEs will want to get all debate-y right back AbE:
Oh yeah...my suggestion...just throw it in PNT...start off the OP with a statement that you want the topic not to be a debate. Reiterate that point from time to time when you see it going towards debate. But it'll be tough, I think.--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-29-2005 04:37 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-29-2005 04:45 AM

He he. Apparently I am not preacing to the converted. Relative dating is an elementary diagnostic tool of geology. Radioactive dating and dendrochronology are both absolute dating methods. Basically any time you count anything (tree rings, ice cores, daughter atoms, etc) you are seeking an absolute age. All the more reason I want to start my thread. It seems like many of the non-scornfull of science folk might learn something too. =)

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

I think you are misunderstanding me and once the thread goes live I think you will see why. The thing is that most people are ignorant of what relative dating is and this last two posts by you and nighttrain help support that. Relative dating does not assign an age to anything so there is no reason for YECs to have a problem with it. There is no debate with regards to relative dating because it is a fact. Any theorey, OE or YE must explain the data gathered from relative dating. Anyone who would have a problem with relative dating really would be wildly out of touch with reality. I think you will see more as to why once I finish my OP.Again, no ages are determined by relative dating. All it is used for is saying what is older than what. Exactly how old is not a question relative dating is even capable of answering. If the earth is old or young relative dating still works. It should be at least 1 place where people on both sides of the debate can fully embrace.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Dammit, and me a prospector from way back.:-P

Hi Jazz - you'll have to excuse me if I make a complete fool of myself here as I have absolutely no knowledge of geology beyond what I've seen on TV programs and read here.When I first saw this thread I assumed relative dating to refer to two ideas from the early years of geology:

• deeper means older (generally speaking)
• fossils of different types always appear in the same order everywhere they are found no matter what sort of rock they are found in (so you can relatively date physically separated rocks based on the fossils in them)

If I am in the right sort of ballpark with what it means then I think when you say: and I think you're missing a very large potential problem.YECism as I've seen it here tends to equate to Biblical Literalism - specifically in our context the truth of the Genesis creation story and the Flood. Basically I think as soon as you try and explore this it will degenerate into yet another go round of trying to fit the geological column and order of the fossil record into the Flood story (and sundry unpredictable side topics). I confidently predict you have no chance of stopping that happening But I could be talking out my backside

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

What you listed is probably the largest generalization I can think of. What I want to go into though is the detail of what kind of structures are out there and how to relative date them.If people want to equate those with Flud Geology then they can go start a thread on that but the idea of the thread I want is not to get into discussion how the flood or how OE depositional environments would create anything. It is all about relative dating and finding at least one place where we can all agree.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

We have a bunch of things going on right now, but if you'll give me a few days I'll ask Percy about how best to set something like you describe up.

---