Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   For Inquisitor, et al: What is Evolution?
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 46 of 81 (40034)
05-14-2003 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
05-14-2003 1:15 AM


The Flood and fossil sorting
Buzz, much could be disputed in your last message, but I'll go with:
quote:
crashfrog - Interesting - in what way? How does the clearly preserved sorting of the fossil record, combined with relative inferred age, support sudden universal creation? It doesn't seem to, to me.
buzzsaw - Imo, the dating methods are flawed, failing to factor the flood.
I tracked down a couple of flood fossil sorting topics.
Flood sorting
and
Fossil Ordering Re-Visited
You've never been involved in either of those topics. Care to dive in now?
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 1:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 47 of 81 (40036)
05-14-2003 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
05-14-2003 12:46 AM


Hurdles.
since the whole is so hard for evolutionists to reconcile
Oh, really? It is the reconciliation of all the different disciplines that re-enforces the conclusions.
Physicists and the cosmologists get comparable dating for the universe as a whole by different methods.
Physicists get absolute dates that agree with the relative dates of the geolgists by independent means.
Paleontolgists get relative dates that agree with the geologists.
Biologists (Cladists) get relationships that agree with the geneticists by independent means.
The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.
You claim "unattenable hurdles" without being able to coherently explain any of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 12:46 AM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 81 (40037)
05-14-2003 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
05-14-2003 1:15 AM


Re: Probabilty calculations
It looks like sea fossils high in the mountain ranges. It looks like modern extreme weather patterns, the industrial revolution and so on.
Now I don't understand. You think sea fossils in uplifted mountains (plate tectonics - heard of it?) and the industrial revolution are supernatural?
Imo, the dating methods are flawed, failing to factor the flood.
That still doesn't address the fossil sorting aspect. Fossils are even sorted by criteria that wouldn't affect flood survivability, such as complexity of shell suture. Why would more complex sutures appear higher in the record than less complex one? I don't see how a flood would cause that.
True, but only since modern schools have indoctrinated the students in it for so long without substantial documentation.
Where do you suppose indoctrination is more likely to occur? Honestly: a science classroom or a church? Creationism's church connections make it a much more likely place for "indoctrination" to occr. That's why churches call it "doctrine".
The fact that there are more and more bonafide creationist scientists who are taking notice of new archeological and scientific discoveries to support sudden creation of life gives credence to the need for science to acknowledge that what is observed supports the possibility of the supernatural as much as your views, depending on the interpretation of the data.
I don't think anyone questions that you could explain the data with supernatural explanations. The question is, is it good for science to accept those explanations over naturalistic ones? I don't think so; naturalistic models have served us very will throughout the history of science. But it's a methodology issue.
Personally, I don't think any lack of evidence is sufficient to prompt science to seek supernatural explanations - and evidence for the supernatural would make it natural. I think that's a view shared by the majority of scientific philosophers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 1:15 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 10:33 AM crashfrog has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 49 of 81 (40038)
05-14-2003 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
05-14-2003 1:15 AM


Re: Probabilty calculations
quote:
It looks like scores of nicely detailed specific fulfilled Biblical prophecies. It looks like Ballard's recent discovery of man made things deep in the Black Sea. It looks like the extinction of the dinosaurs. It looks like man made articles found in coal beds. It looks like sea fossils high in the mountain ranges. It looks like modern extreme weather patterns, the industrial revolution and so on. Like I say, it's all in how you interpret what you see.
Lets go over these.
1) There are no detailed specific prophecies in the bible that require supernatural explanation
2) Ballards discovery does not support supernatural intervention in any way. At most it would indicate that the flooding of the Black Sea (a LOCAL flood - the water is still there !) inspired the Biblical Flood myth. So if you want to take Ballard's work as supporting your views then you have to give up the idea that the Flood story is literally true.
3) The alleged discoveries of man made items in coal beds are all anecdotal and mostly old. It is entirely possible that they are hoaxes.
4) The sea fossils found in mountain ranges are all adequately explained by geology (mainly uplift). For which we have evidence.
As for the rest I have no idea how you could interpret those as evidence for the supernatural at all.
SO none of the items you listed are clear evidence of the supernatural - and item 2) in particular requires rejecting one of your supernatural beliiefs in favour of a naturalistic explanation.
quote:
Imo, the dating methods are flawed, failing to factor the flood.
THere is no reason to suppose that the flood would affect the dating at all. What you mean is that since you dislike the results you are looking for excuses to explain them away. However the flood cannot explain the actual results.
As for your definition it was not an accurate description of the CONTENT of that theory - simply an expression of your opinions. Some "scientists" might prefer it - but on the grounds that it supported their religious views - not because your definition has any scientific merit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 1:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 81 (40071)
05-14-2003 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by crashfrog
05-14-2003 3:24 AM


Re: Probabilty calculations
quote:
Now I don't understand. You think sea fossils in uplifted mountains (plate tectonics - heard of it?) and the industrial revolution are supernatural?
I didn't explain too much as I didn't know how far to stray from difinition here.
This unique creationist (me) does not necessarily follow the thinking of many prominent creationists on some things.
Imo, the mountain ranges were pushed up by the flood waters which sank the oceans to their present depths, the pre-flood earth being relatively smooth surfaced.
2. The industrial revolution is prophecied for what the Bible calls the "end of the age" and the end of the present world orders. That mankind will destroy himself, life and the world via this revolution unchecked, is undisputed by many.
quote:
That still doesn't address the fossil sorting aspect. Fossils are even sorted by criteria that wouldn't affect flood survivability, such as complexity of shell suture. Why would more complex sutures appear higher in the record than less complex one? I don't see how a flood would cause that.
1. There is nowhere a total and complete geological column in one area to my knowledge. Why not?
2. There are numerous discrepencies in the column as Morris's Grand Canyon video shows, for example. I've read of numerous others from different sources.
3. The walking and flying creatures were able to survive the longest time as they all likely went to high ground during the eommencement of the flood. Likely their bodies rotted, etc and were the least likely to be suddenly burried as were the tiny things. Man being the most intelligent would be the longest survivor of the flood as they would've known the highest places and were the most able to find floating debris to keep afloat the longest.
quote:
Where do you suppose indoctrination is more likely to occur? Honestly: a science classroom or a church? Creationism's church connections make it a much more likely place for "indoctrination" to occr. That's why churches call it "doctrine".
Doctrine is simply a belief/ideology or teaching and both have that.
So both indoctrinate. The Bible was taught in our public schools for many years in nations early days. Since there is a Satan and the existence of evil countering truth, it is logical that it would not be widely believed. It is prophecied in it that the vast majority would not believe it. It has inspired the creation of the most prosperous, free and blessed culture ever on the planet. Look at history and see what athiestic communism and the various other religions have accomplished.
quote:
I don't think anyone questions that you could explain the data with supernatural explanations. The question is, is it good for science to accept those explanations over naturalistic ones? I don't think so; naturalistic models have served us very will throughout the history of science. But it's a methodology issue.
I'm open minded and willing to change my mind if and when the Bible record is sucessfully refuted. I've looked at both sides for over 50 years and so far the Biblical record wins hands down.
quote:
Personally, I don't think any lack of evidence is sufficient to prompt science to seek supernatural explanations - and evidence for the supernatural would make it natural. I think that's a view shared by the majority of scientific philosophers.
But there's a reason the Bible is outlawed in public schools. The forces of evil against truth can't deal with it's competition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is a reply to:
Message 45 by buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 12:15 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2003 3:24 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by zephyr, posted 05-14-2003 11:20 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2003 3:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 56 by wj, posted 05-14-2003 9:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 59 by Coragyps, posted 05-14-2003 10:19 PM Buzsaw has replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 51 of 81 (40080)
05-14-2003 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
05-14-2003 10:33 AM


Re: Probabilty calculations
quote:
1. There is nowhere a total and complete geological column in one area to my knowledge. Why not?
I'm getting tired of hearing this claim over and over again. If you would keep up with more threads, you would know that the complete column is found in over 20 locations. In the last 2 months, I've seen your claim refuted in this very forum multiple times.
quote:
2. There are numerous discrepencies in the column as Morris's Grand Canyon video shows, for example. I've read of numerous others from different sources.
Describe these discrepancies and you will get a good explanation for them.
quote:
3. The walking and flying creatures were able to survive the longest time as they all likely went to high ground during the eommencement of the flood. Likely their bodies rotted, etc and were the least likely to be suddenly burried as were the tiny things. Man being the most intelligent would be the longest survivor of the flood as they would've known the highest places and were the most able to find floating debris to keep afloat the longest.
Now you're avoiding specific evidence and repeating a generalized claim that does not explain the sorting. Address the sorting of similar bodies by features unrelated to intelligence, mobility, ecological niche, size, or shape: the shell sutures. Explain "flood" strata both below and above desert strata. Explain a stratum representing the gradual evaporation of a sea - with "flood" strata above and below. Until you can explain the complexity of the geologic record, in detail from top to bottom, you are clutching at straws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 10:33 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 1:58 PM zephyr has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 81 (40090)
05-14-2003 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by zephyr
05-14-2003 11:20 AM


Re: Probabilty calculations
quote:
I'm getting tired of hearing this claim over and over again. If you would keep up with more threads, you would know that the complete column is found in over 20 locations. In the last 2 months, I've seen your claim refuted in this very forum multiple times.
I have a full time business and simply don't have time to do a lot here. Sorry about that, but I appreciate all I'm learning here as to how you all think and will continue to learn all I have time for. It seems that the complete column should be prevelant all over with deviations here and there the exceptions.
BTW, how many things have you observed sitting around to become fossils for folks in the next millionth generation to observe?? Time doesn't seem to be of the essence in the process so much as how they die. Right?
quote:
2. There are numerous discrepencies in the column as Morris's Grand Canyon video shows, for example. I've read of numerous others from different sources.
Describe these discrepancies and you will get a good explanation for them.
The descrepencies are the geolocical column. Why don't you take the time to watch his video and critique it here? Also his Mt. St. Hellens video and the sudden sedimentation of the new canyon it formed is very inlightening.
quote:
Now you're avoiding specific evidence and repeating a generalized claim that does not explain the sorting. Address the sorting of similar bodies by features unrelated to intelligence, mobility, ecological niche, size, or shape: the shell sutures. Explain "flood" strata both below and above desert strata. Explain a stratum representing the gradual evaporation of a sea - with "flood" strata above and below. Until you can explain the complexity of the geologic record, in detail from top to bottom, you are clutching at straws.
I've read the arguments both of Morris and of his critics on this. He calls it "hydraulic" sorting, similar to what I alluded to. There are arguments for and against both. There are different creatures within the same species that naturally act differently. Some of the critique is assumption. And again you folks have this huge problem of things sitting around to be fossilized somehow magically. That, imo is not scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by zephyr, posted 05-14-2003 11:20 AM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by zephyr, posted 05-14-2003 2:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 05-14-2003 9:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 53 of 81 (40099)
05-14-2003 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Buzsaw
05-14-2003 1:58 PM


Re: Probabilty calculations
quote:
It seems that the complete column should be prevelant all over with deviations here and there the exceptions.
I saw a really good answer here, which I can't locate, so I'll paraphrase. (Apologies to the author, feel free to identify yourself and/or clarify) The older the earth is, the more likely that sections of the column will be missing in some places, because of long-term erosion or other effects. A young earth with rapidly formed strata would likely have a complete column in most or all areas; therefore, the complicated geologic record with its myriad distinct catastrophes and discontinuities, verifies that our world has been around a long time and subject to many long-term variations in environment.
quote:
BTW, how many things have you observed sitting around to become fossils for folks in the next millionth generation to observe?? Time doesn't seem to be of the essence in the process so much as how they die. Right?
Sure. Quick burial does seem to be a factor that encourages fossilization. Are you implying that the only way that anything would ever be buried quickly is in a worldwide flood? Or that nobody but creationists believes in floods, because they don't believe in *THE* flood? Hardly. There are floods all throughout the fossil record in many locations. Many separate floods at different strata, with dry environments preserved between them. What there isn't is a single flood at any level that reaches around the world.
Creationists love the strawman of uniformitarianism, the one that implies that "evilutionists" can't comprehend catastrophes... well, modern geology is quite aware of catastrophes, including floods. It also interprets the geologic record as indicating a long and complex history which includes many large floods, but not a single one creating all the sediment in the world today.
quote:
I've read the arguments both of Morris and of his critics on this. He calls it "hydraulic" sorting, similar to what I alluded to. There are arguments for and against both. There are different creatures within the same species that naturally act differently. Some of the critique is assumption. And again you folks have this huge problem of things sitting around to be fossilized somehow magically. That, imo is not scientific.
Nobody has ever claimed things sit around to be magically fossilized. Shameless strawman.
Hydraulic sorting in no way, shape or form explains the sorting of the fossil record. The ability of all modern animals, regardless of size, shape, mobility, or intelligence, to run to the highest points of the earth before a rapidly moving flood could bury a single one of them in a place where we could find it, even if it were believable, would not explain why none of them sank to lower strata during the months when the entire earth was an ocean of watery mud. Large plant-eating animals of the Mesozoic and large plant-eating animals of today, with basically the same bodies, same ecological niche, probably the same behavior, intelligence, etc., are separated worldwide. Down low in the column we find only bacteria, despite their being the least likely organisms to settle in a flood. And so on and so forth. Once you start looking at the detailed information that has been gathered, a worldwide flood just doesn't make sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 1:58 PM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 81 (40106)
05-14-2003 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
05-14-2003 10:33 AM


Re: Probabilty calculations
That mankind will destroy himself, life and the world via this revolution unchecked, is undisputed by many.
You hang out with some pretty negative people. I guess I'm a little more hopeful as is everyone I know. If anything destroys us it'll be a natural disease...
1. There is nowhere a total and complete geological column in one area to my knowledge. Why not?
I think Zephyr just covered this? Because in a 4 billion year-old earth, erosion happens. If the flood only happened 4000 years ago, why isn't the column more universally complete?
The walking and flying creatures were able to survive the longest time as they all likely went to high ground during the eommencement of the flood. Likely their bodies rotted, etc and were the least likely to be suddenly burried as were the tiny things. Man being the most intelligent would be the longest survivor of the flood as they would've known the highest places and were the most able to find floating debris to keep afloat the longest.
That still doesn't explain sorting for reasons that have nothing to do with behavior, intelligence, or motive power. And it doesn't begin to explain why the fossil order is almost totally bulletproof - I mean, surely one or two humans - even a city's worth of them - were so dumb that some of them drowned right away? Or had died the previous day and were already buried in "precambrian" sediment? It simply doesn't explain why no humans whatsoever are found with dinosaurs.
Why couldn't flying dinosaurs survive as well as modern large birds? Sloths can't run; why don't we find them down with the idiot dinosaurs? It's just a stupid argument. I can't believe anybody takes it seriously.
It is prophecied in it that the vast majority would not believe it.
heh - some prophecy. I could write a book, put in the same prophecy (and a few more for good measure - "Unrest in the Middle East!") - would you believe it? Because it would certainly be true - some people would not believe my book.
It has inspired the creation of the most prosperous, free and blessed culture ever on the planet.
I suspect if you examined the beliefs of the French philosophers that our modern democracy is based on, you'd find a whole lot of atheists. Perhaps you could point out where "democracy" is found in the bible? Heck, if our founding fathers were alive today you'd find their beliefs very, very different from your own.
Look at history and see what athiestic communism and the various other religions have accomplished.
Consider for a moment why the numbers we use are called "arabic". Could that be because modern mathematics was invented in a Muslim culture? They also invented astronomy and medical science way before anything in your christian world. The wheel was invented in Iraq. (Atheists are not communists, anyway. I'm not, for instance.) The Chinese invented the printing press, gunpowder/fireworks/rocketry, paper money, noodles. I could go on. Honestly a little less ethnocentricity would make you look less credulous.
I've looked at both sides for over 50 years and so far the Biblical record wins hands down.
Well, I'm clearly not as old as you - but in my experience, older people are looking more for comfort in the face of impending mortality rather than objective (and scary!) scientific reality.
But there's a reason the Bible is outlawed in public schools.
It's not outlawed in schools - I took a bible to class all the time in school. (I did go to public school, yes.) Heck, I'd even teach from it, if I were a teacher - but I'd teach from it in the context of social examination of religious mythology, like I would examine any other religion. I wouldn't use it in place of science.
Sure, schools tend to decend on anything even remotely christian - but it's a backlash to christians who insist on their worldview being promulgated as science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 10:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 55 of 81 (40152)
05-14-2003 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Daddy
05-13-2003 12:46 PM


An Actual Probability Calculation
Since so many people have tried to make probability calculations, I thought I'd proffer an actual question, just to see if people understand:
Suppose I have n darts, each with a 1/n chance of striking the target. What is the probability of hitting the target at least once given 10 darts? 20 darts? An infinite number of darts? How many darts must you have to be within 99% of the value of an infinite number of darts?
Hint: Don't try to calculate the number of ways to hit the target. Instead, notice that the question is equivalent to asking for the probability of not hitting the target at all and then subtracting that from one since there is only one way of not hitting the target at all: Every dart misses.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Daddy, posted 05-13-2003 12:46 PM Daddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2003 9:34 PM Rrhain has replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 81 (40153)
05-14-2003 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
05-14-2003 10:33 AM


Re: Probabilty calculations
buzsaw says:
quote:
1. There is nowhere a total and complete geological column in one area to my knowledge. Why not?
This is why creationists like to remain ignorant. Too much knowledge would eventually accrue which contradicts their biblical literalist theology. So I suppose you won't read this article which lists 31 locations where the complete geologic column can be found and goes into great detail on the North Dakota location.
As to your silly scenario about walking and flying creatures moving to higher ground, please explain why mangroves which are endemic to low-lying and coastal areas are not found in the fossil record until relatively late. They are preceded in the fossil record for hundreds of millions of years by ferns and gymnosperms. Surely the mangroves didn't run away from the flood faster than ferns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 10:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 57 of 81 (40154)
05-14-2003 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Buzsaw
05-14-2003 1:58 PM


Re: Probabilty calculations
buzsaw writes:
quote:
I've read the arguments both of Morris and of his critics on this. He calls it "hydraulic" sorting, similar to what I alluded to.
But hydraulic sorting would sort things by density, not by morphology.
Have you ever bought a box of cereal or a bag of chips? Have you noticed that all of the big flakes/chips are on top while all of the crumbs and dust are at the bottom?
Do you think the manufacturers deliberately did that?
So why is it that if you were to turn the box/bag upside down and gently shake it, you find that it would re-sort itself so that all the big ones are on top and all the little ones are on the bottom?
If the flood were to do things like Morris suggests, then we should see all the gigantic fossils on top and all of the tiny fossils on bottom.
But we don't. They're sorted not by density but by morphology.
Ergo, Morris is incorrect in his hypothesis.
quote:
And again you folks have this huge problem of things sitting around to be fossilized somehow magically.
What problem is there for a dead organism not to move?
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 1:58 PM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 81 (40155)
05-14-2003 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Rrhain
05-14-2003 9:14 PM


Re: An Actual Probability Calculation
Suppose I have n darts, each with a 1/n chance of striking the target.
This part I don't understand. Your use of n twice confuses me. Do you mean that if I have 2 darts, I have a 1/2 chance of hitting the target? 3 darts, 1/3 chance? By this logic if I only have one dart (1/1 chance of hitting) it hits every time.
You should be more careful picking your variable names if the above isn't what you meant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Rrhain, posted 05-14-2003 9:14 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Rrhain, posted 05-14-2003 11:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 59 of 81 (40160)
05-14-2003 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
05-14-2003 10:33 AM


Re: Probabilty calculations
Imo, the mountain ranges were pushed up by the flood waters which sank the oceans to their present depths, the pre-flood earth being relatively smooth surfaced.
Which has the higher density, seawater or rock?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 10:33 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2003 11:18 PM Coragyps has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 60 of 81 (40166)
05-14-2003 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
05-14-2003 9:34 PM


Re: An Actual Probability Calculation
crashfrog responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Suppose I have n darts, each with a 1/n chance of striking the target.
This part I don't understand. Your use of n twice confuses me. Do you mean that if I have 2 darts, I have a 1/2 chance of hitting the target? 3 darts, 1/3 chance? By this logic if I only have one dart (1/1 chance of hitting) it hits every time.
You should be more careful picking your variable names if the above isn't what you meant.
No, you got it exactly right: If I have 4 darts, each has a probability of only 1/4 of hitting...10 darts means each has only a 1/10 probability of hitting...an infinite number of darts means each has an infinitesimal probability of hitting.
And, indeed, a single dart means there is a guaranteed chance of hitting. But, the question put before us is to determine a solution for all possible cases.
That's why I made the hint that I did: Rather than try to determine directly the odds, calculate the opposite problem: Completely missing. Subtract that from 1 and you've got your answer. All you need to do, then, is plug in n and you get your answer.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 05-14-2003 9:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2003 12:51 AM Rrhain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024