I'm going to let this one go. The irony is just too much for me to debate the meaning of difficult while trying not to be difficult.

We'll talk again when you have a few hundred posts in RGT.

I have no idea what is making you think there's a radius that creates the transition between a search for a body and a search for a live person. The "searching for a body" (as far as I know) is not bounded by physical distance. It could be tied to the particular details of the written note, as well as the circumstances within the family. However, it's most likely tied to the amount of time that has elapsed since the discovery.

OP stated that it's the end of a 3 day retreat, so the child has been potentially missing for four days. (I somehow recall that it's 24 hours before a missing person report can be filed -- although this has changed with the implementation of the Amber Alert system, but this is only applied to children, and even then I don't think it's a formal missing person report. But either way, if the police are involved, it's not as if the child has been gone for an afternoon.)

As to the location, in an area with a lot of cover (cornfields, forest), it's easy to hide if you're trying to hide. You don't need to go very far to become invisible. Most search and rescue operations operate with the assumption that the lost person wants to be found, so there's a lot of calling out and that sort of thing. If you're trying to hide, all of that calling out simply lets you know where the searchers are located, and you can avoid them fairly easily.

See above. You don't have to be deep in the woods to have a good hiding place.

I think you're assuming a lot of things here. You can imagine a situation where the child is at the door, but afraid of what the parents will say/do now that the police are involved (or hears someone saying something upsetting in the house), and decides to turn around rather than confront the embarrassment/shame/whatever is associated with what has happened. I'm not going to say much on this end because there are all sorts of possibilities, as it's a very complex situation and I can't say with any level of confidence which class of scenarios is actually more likely.

The primary point that simplistic modeling is probably a pretty ineffective way of approaching the problem.

I'm not sure what a few hundred posts would change. I've lived and acted the same way for the past seven years now. I live in a melting pot of a city and have came across and spoken to individuals of very many different faiths. Also working the medical field I have been in the homes and encountered people of many religions and beliefs. Nor am I biased to attack anyone who doesn't believe what I do. I am highly critical and vocal of fellow Christians who preach what I consider to be false doctrine. I just sincerely believe we could all be a bit more pleasant and cordial when we debate and speak religions amongst each other.

Ah Aaron, I see you haven't changed in years.

Why assume the most likely, when you can twist, distort, dream, and make up all sorts of otherwise stupid bull-****?

I don't blame you. Religious zealots have been doing it for millenia.

Wow. Seven years. I'm 48. Seven-years is just a blip when it comes to discovering truth.

Ok - So the OP believes in God. Why the hell does everybody feel the need to feel the need to challenge him and change his mind? Face it, there have been believers and non-believers for years. Your dumb comments on 2p2 isn't going to change it. Why don't you just start another thread as opposed to hijack this one?

Because this is RGT. Welcome to the forum!

I haven't said anything about discovering any truth. Now you're definitely extrapolating on what I am saying to prove some point that isn't valid. I was talking about being respectful and tolerant of other's beliefs. I don't see how growing older would cause me to move backwards from that position at all. If you're saying I am supposed to grow less tolerant as I near my 50s and treat everyone poorly because they do not share my beliefs. Then you are just wrong.

Ok I'll respect that. It isn't even about winning and one of us emerging victorious in our debate in to how to treat others in talking about religion. I just wanted share my ideas and opinions with you, and you are free to do with it as you would like. Your avatar still remains cool lol.

I am only positing the notion that given that a search has taken place and given that enough time has passed for the police to now be searching for a body, it's more likely than not that the child was outside of the necessary distance for the group's intercessory prayer to have a deciding effect on the child's initial decision to come home.

(Holy **** that has got to be a run-on sentence...Oh well.)

Then why are you here?

Still here, still pointing out the same types of errors.

If you go back and read the conversation, you'll see that the whole question is on how one establishes what is most likely. Simply asserting it doesn't make it so.

And if you have found the truth in your 48 wise years of age, then why are you *still*here?

See what I did there?

Bolded: Yes, I see that this is your assertion. What I don't see is how you support this assertion.

Underlined: Think about what you mean by this. Which straw breaks the camel's back? (At a certain level, if prayer is efficacious it needs only have some contribution on the outcome. In other words, as long as the straw is in the bundle...)

It's quite impressive.