IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags shroud of turin

Closed Thread
Old 17th November 2012, 06:54 AM   #4161
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability

Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
Thanks for the direct answer. Let's assume solipsism doesn't hold here.

So your reasoning applies to you, to me, to everyone on the internet, and everyone everywhere everytime.

In your analogy, then, there should be no normal decks. Every deck is a deck of Aces because everyone is an Ace.

With me so far?
Garrette,
- I think so.
- But I retain the right to change my mind.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 06:58 AM   #4162
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating/Relevance of Blood

Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
No, stupid and irrelevant.
Zoo,
- I was asking Dinwar. Though -- I do expect him to say the same thing...
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 07:00 AM   #4163
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero.
Explain why. Why does the probability of a 14th century artist being able to put blood on a cloth approach zero?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
It is relevant just because you say it is? I think not.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think so. You're accepting that it's relevant -- just that, it's also stupid.
--- Jabba
Nope. He is saying it is BOTH irrelevant AND stupid.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 07:03 AM   #4164
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability

Originally Posted by Humots View Post
OK, let's try this.

Consider a software simulation of the card deck scenario that contains the following sequence of operations:
  1. Generate a random number in the range 1-50
  2. If the number is 1, the Ace Deck has been chosen.
    1. Set ACE_DECK to 1
    2. Set ACE_DRAWN to 1
  3. If the number is 2-50, the regular deck has been chosen.
    1. Generate a random number in the range 1-13
    2. If the number is 1, an Ace has been drawn.
      1. Set ACE_DECK set to 0
      2. Set ACE_DRAWN to 1
    3. If the number is 2-13, a non-Ace card has been drawn.
      1. Set ACE_DECK to 0
      2. Set ACE_DRAWN to 0
  4. End
This is a Monte Carlo simulation of the scenario.

Every time it is executed, one of three things will occur:
  1. A card is drawn from the Ace deck (ACE_DECK = 1, ACE_DRAWN = 1)
  2. A card is drawn from the regular deck, and it is an Ace (ACE_DECK = 0, ACE_DRAWN = 1)
  3. A card is drawn from the regular deck and it is not an Ace (ACE_DECK = 0, ACE_DRAWN = 0)
By running this sequence a very high number of times and keeping track of the results, we get values that should reflect the probabilities of the different outcomes.

We count:
  1. The number of times the procedure is executed
  2. The number of times an ace is drawn from the Ace deck
  3. The number of times an Ace is drawn from the regular deck
  4. The number of times no ace is drawn from the regular deck
P(All-Ace deck|Ace drawn)
= The number of times an ace is drawn from the Ace deck /
The number of times the procedure is executed

P(Ace drawn)
= (The number of times an Ace is drawn from the Ace deck /
The number of times the procedure is executed) +
(The number of times an Ace is drawn from the regular deck) /
The number of times the procedure is executed)

What I am saying is that we should see:
P(All-Ace deck|Ace drawn) = (approximately!) 0.2097
P(Ace drawn) = (approximately!) 0.02 + 0.075385 = 0.095385
as I computed earlier in post #4040.

Does this clarify things?
Humots,
- This will take some serious thinking.
- I'll be back.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 07:11 AM   #4165
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating/Relevance of Blood

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Explain why. Why does the probability of a 14th century artist being able to put blood on a cloth approach zero?
It is relevant just because you say it is? I think not.
Nope. He is saying it is BOTH irrelevant AND stupid.
Abaddon,
- It may be stupid, but it's relevant to your debate because it is one of the debate premises of your opponent. It's relevant until your opponent drops it.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 07:11 AM   #4166
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- I was asking Dinwar. Though -- I do expect him to say the same thing...
He already did, in the post you were replying to.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 07:13 AM   #4167
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability

- I'll be MIA for awhile while I think about Humots' challenge.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 07:17 AM   #4168
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Jabba
- I think so. You're accepting that it's relevant -- just that, it's also stupid.
No, I've accepted that you've said it. There is a difference. Are you willing to accept that I've just disproven it? Because I have (and so have many others; pretty much your entire opposition, in fact).

Quote:
- It may be stupid, but it's relevant to your debate because it is one of the debate premises of your opponent. It's relevant until your opponent drops it.
I thought we'd gone over this: YOU DO NOT GET TO DICTATE THE TERMS OF THIS DEBATE. This is SCIENCE. I could--in fact should have--dismissed your claim entirely as you've utterly failed to support it with anything resembling data. The fact that it contradicts everything we know about the time period is just icing on the cake. Relevance is irrelevant here--it's an unsupported mere assertion and therefore irrelevant in a scientific debate. Opinions unsubstantiated by evidence are BY DEFINITION irrelevant.

So it's wrong, it doesn't hold up to five minute's consideration, and it's irrelevant. All at the same time.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 07:36 AM   #4169
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'll be MIA for awhile while I think about Humots' challenge.
What challenge, exactly?

The chance of an ace that has been drawn at random being from the all aces pack? Off the top of my head, that would be 13/62. But I don't see how that is relevant to the shroud.

Do you accept that if the carbon dating is accurate, then the shroud cannot be what you claim it is, regardless of what any other evidence says?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 07:42 AM   #4170
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability

Originally Posted by Humots View Post
OK, let's try this.

Consider a software simulation of the card deck scenario that contains the following sequence of operations:
  1. Generate a random number in the range 1-50
  2. If the number is 1, the Ace Deck has been chosen.
    1. Set ACE_DECK to 1
    2. Set ACE_DRAWN to 1
  3. If the number is 2-50, the regular deck has been chosen.
    1. Generate a random number in the range 1-13
    2. If the number is 1, an Ace has been drawn.
      1. Set ACE_DECK set to 0
      2. Set ACE_DRAWN to 1
    3. If the number is 2-13, a non-Ace card has been drawn.
      1. Set ACE_DECK to 0
      2. Set ACE_DRAWN to 0
  4. End
This is a Monte Carlo simulation of the scenario.

Every time it is executed, one of three things will occur:
  1. A card is drawn from the Ace deck (ACE_DECK = 1, ACE_DRAWN = 1)
  2. A card is drawn from the regular deck, and it is an Ace (ACE_DECK = 0, ACE_DRAWN = 1)
  3. A card is drawn from the regular deck and it is not an Ace (ACE_DECK = 0, ACE_DRAWN = 0)
By running this sequence a very high number of times and keeping track of the results, we get values that should reflect the probabilities of the different outcomes.

We count:
  1. The number of times the procedure is executed
  2. The number of times an ace is drawn from the Ace deck
  3. The number of times an Ace is drawn from the regular deck
  4. The number of times no ace is drawn from the regular deck
P(All-Ace deck|Ace drawn)
= The number of times an ace is drawn from the Ace deck /
The number of times the procedure is executed

P(Ace drawn)
= (The number of times an Ace is drawn from the Ace deck /
The number of times the procedure is executed) +
(The number of times an Ace is drawn from the regular deck) /
The number of times the procedure is executed)

What I am saying is that we should see:
P(All-Ace deck|Ace drawn) = (approximately!) 0.2097
P(Ace drawn) = (approximately!) 0.02 + 0.075385 = 0.095385
as I computed earlier in post #4040.

Does this clarify things?
Humots,
- So far, it’s difficult for me to put my argument into your format, but the following might be close enough to help resolve our issue.
- There are 52 ways of drawing an Ace from the Ace deck.
- There are 4 ways of drawing an ace from each of the 49 normal decks – a total of 4*49, or 196 ways of drawing an ace from the 49 normal decks.
- Altogether, there are 52+196 ways of drawing an ace from those 50 decks. The probability of having drawn your ace from the ace deck is 52/(52+196), or 0.209677419.
- That sure seems right to me…
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 08:45 AM   #4171
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Abaddon,
- It may be stupid, but it's relevant to your debate because it is one of the debate premises of your opponent. It's relevant until your opponent drops it.
--- Jabba
...so you intend to make the same pointless claims until people "drop" logic, and reason, and history?

This is why I refuse to let go of the 14C dates, even for the sake of argument. I concede nothing, lest you pretend that the issue had been "dropped"--so you could pretend to your friends at shroudstory and so on that one of your "three fronts" was "being won".

Were this an actual "debate", or an actual "hearing", you would lose points, or be admonished, for continuing to harp on a settled issue. If you have evidence (not opinion, not disappointment-with-how-things-are, not third-hand character assassination, but evidence) of a conflicting 14C date, you should present it. If not, all of the rest of the discussion is a discussion about a medieval artifact. All of the arguments about blood-that-isn't-there flowing from wounds-that-are-not-accurate on a washed, hours-dead body, on a cloth-that-wasn't-"wrapped" around a figure-that-is-not-anatomically-accurate represented in the Byzantine style--all of these issues must be dealt with in the context of the fact that the cloth has been dated by three independent labs to be a medieval artifact.

Not only that, you yourself said that, if the cloth were tested again, and the results were, again, that the cloth is a medieval artifact, you would not accept that result because of contamination, or radiation, or some as-yet-unexplained supernatural process that will only later come to be seen as natural.

Why not just jump right to the miracle, and make the claim that, by miraculous means, the medieval cloth is, in fact, the One True Shroud™, no matter what reality indicates, and "hae done wi' it"?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 08:56 AM   #4172
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability

Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
1)What challenge, exactly?

2)The chance of an ace that has been drawn at random being from the all aces pack? Off the top of my head, that would be 13/62. 3) But I don't see how that is relevant to the shroud.

4) Do you accept that if the carbon dating is accurate, then the shroud cannot be what you claim it is, regardless of what any other evidence says?
Zoo,

Re #1 – Post #4152.
Re #2 -- Note that you agree with me re the probability of having drawn your Ace from the Ace deck...
Re #3 – Back in post #3994, I said, “In other words, if we are stuck with an imprint (which we would be if I'm right about the serum clot retraction rings), rather than a painting, the probability is quite large that the Shroud is that of Jesus, and the 14th century dating is just wrong. In post #3995, Resume said, “I'm guessing probability is a term with which you lack a certain familiarity.” So here, I’m just trying to show that I [q]am[/q] familiar with probability.
Re #4 – If you accept that the dating would not be accurate if it is the result of irradiation and is therefore not the real age of the cloth, then yeah – if the dating is accurate in that sense, I’d have to accept that the Shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus.

--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 09:15 AM   #4173
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Jabba
So here, I’m just trying to show that I [q]am[/q] familiar with probability.
In a manner that's completely irrelevant to the discussion. Knowing how to predict which card is drawn from a deck is utterly different from knowing the probability of something happening in history. You demonstrably lack knowledge of society of the Middle Ages, and thus are incapable of performing any valid calculations, even if you know statistics (and the fact that you don't know that implies that you're either lying about knowing statistics or incompetent, as anyone with a high-school level understanding of stats knows that you can't plug the numbers into the equations if you lack the numbers to plug in).

Quote:
If you accept that the dating would not be accurate if it is the result of irradiation and is therefore not the real age of the cloth
In other words: If we accept that something happened but there's absolutely no evidence whatever for that something happening and we can't even IDENTIFY that "something", the shroud may not be as old as the C14 dating says it is. Do you see the problem here? Actually, there are TWO problems. First, you have to prove that the shroud WAS irradiated before you can demand we accept that the shroud's date is inaccurate due to irradiation. Second, irradiation actually would lead to an OLDER age. Bombardment with radiation of the type that would impact C14 dating would result in the C14 atoms splitting, leading to an artificial abundance of daughter isotopes. However, it wouldn't create new parent isotopes--that occurs when N14 encounters cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, and is caused by a different type of radiation. So if the shroud was irradiated, and it impacted the date, you'd be MORE WRONG than the C14 dating currently indicates.

That's the thing, Jabba--it's not sufficient to prove that the C14 dating is erroneous. It has to have just the RIGHT type of error for your fantasy to have any validity. It has to artificially make the shroud read a younger date than it should, by about 1200 years. ANYTHING ELSE would result in you still being wrong. So you can't just "cast reasonable doubt"--you have to demonstrate that the error results in the precise date predicted by your hypothesis. ANY OTHER TYPE OF ERROR results in you still being wrong. And THAT is why reasonable doubt isn't a criteria in science: something can be completely wrong, but still disprove your pet hypothesis. It actually happens quite frequently.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 09:29 AM   #4174
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Abaddon,
- It may be stupid, but it's relevant to your debate because it is one of the debate premises of your opponent. It's relevant until your opponent drops it.
--- Jabba
Dodge noted. Answer the question.

Quote:
Explain why. Why does the probability of a 14th century artist being able to put blood on a cloth approach zero?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 10:47 AM   #4175
Humots
Critical Thinker
 
Humots's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Humots,
- So far, it’s difficult for me to put my argument into your format, but the following might be close enough to help resolve our issue.
- There are 52 ways of drawing an Ace from the Ace deck.
- There are 4 ways of drawing an ace from each of the 49 normal decks – a total of 4*49, or 196 ways of drawing an ace from the 49 normal decks.
- Altogether, there are 52+196 ways of drawing an ace from those 50 decks. The probability of having drawn your ace from the ace deck is 52/(52+196), or 0.209677419.
- That sure seems right to me…
--- Jabba
0.209677419 rounds to 0.2097, about 1 in 5, the answer I computed in post #4040, not 0.02/.075385 = 0.2653, about 1 in 4, as you implied in .../ACT2Scene1.php.

So the issue is resolved: you miscalculated the probability of having drawn a card from the All-Ace deck.

I used Bayes' theorem to get the answer you are giving now. You did not use Bayes' theorem to get that answer, but that does not mean it does not apply.
Humots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 12:33 PM   #4176
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition. ...
You are mistaken in trying to impose the structure of a debate here.
You do not have that right.
Whatever the probability of any circumstance concerning the shroud, the fact is it's dated to the 14th century.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- It may be stupid, but it's relevant to your debate because it is one of the debate premises of your opponent. It's relevant until your opponent drops it.
No, Jabba, this is not a debate.
You do not have the right to impose such a structure upon us.
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 12:36 PM   #4177
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post

Re #1 – Post #4152.
Yes, I've seen it. What challenge does it contain?
Quote:
Re #2 -- Note that you agree with me re the probability of having drawn your Ace from the Ace deck...
Yes, you're giving the same value in the thread, though not on your web site.
Quote:
Re #3 – Back in post #3994, I said, “In other words, if we are stuck with an imprint (which we would be if I'm right about the serum clot retraction rings), rather than a painting, the probability is quite large that the Shroud is that of Jesus, and the 14th century dating is just wrong. In post #3995, Resume said, “I'm guessing probability is a term with which you lack a certain familiarity.” So here, I’m just trying to show that I [q]am[/q] familiar with probability.
You are certainly demonstrating your familiarity with probability.

Quote:
Re #4 – If you accept that the dating would not be accurate if it is the result of irradiation and is therefore not the real age of the cloth, then yeah – if the dating is accurate in that sense, I’d have to accept that the Shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus.
I don't see any need for qualification. Either the dating is accurate, or it isn't. If it's accurate, then it cannot be the burial shroud of Jesus.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 12:50 PM   #4178
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post

I don't see any need for qualification. Either the dating is accurate, or it isn't. If it's accurate, then it cannot be the burial shroud of Jesus.
And even if it's not accurate it still might not be--again, it has to be inaccurate in the right way. Anything that would make the C14 dating read older than it should would be a bias in favor of the fraud interpretation.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 03:59 PM   #4179
Humots
Critical Thinker
 
Humots's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Humots,
- So far, it’s difficult for me to put my argument into your format, but the following might be close enough to help resolve our issue.
- There are 52 ways of drawing an Ace from the Ace deck.
- There are 4 ways of drawing an ace from each of the 49 normal decks – a total of 4*49, or 196 ways of drawing an ace from the 49 normal decks.
- Altogether, there are 52+196 ways of drawing an ace from those 50 decks. The probability of having drawn your ace from the ace deck is 52/(52+196), or 0.209677419.
- That sure seems right to me…
--- Jabba
The value is approximately correct, as I said in my last post, but I don't see how you arrived at it.

A probability value is:

Quote:
In its simplest form, the number of occurrences of a targeted event divided by the number of occurrences plus the number of failures of occurrences (this adds up to the total of possible outcomes)from whatis.techtarget.com/definition/probability
In this case, the targeted event is drawing an Ace from the Ace deck.

How are you coming up with 52/(52+196)? Why is 52 the number of occurrences of the targeted event? Why is (52+196) the number of occurrences plus the number of failures of occurrences? How does this fit the above definition of probability?
Humots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 04:20 PM   #4180
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by Humots View Post


In this case, the targeted event is drawing an Ace from the Ace deck.
No, the event that jabba is looking at the probability of is, having drawn an Ace, that it came from the all-Ace pack.
Quote:
How are you coming up with 52/(52+196)? Why is 52 the number of occurrences of the targeted event? Why is (52+196) the number of occurrences plus the number of failures of occurrences? How does this fit the above definition of probability?
There are 52 Aces in the all-Ace pack, and 196 in the other 49 (4 per pack).


ETA: And it still has nothing to do with carbon dating.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 06:22 PM   #4181
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Garrette,
- I think so.
- But I retain the right to change my mind.
--- Jabba
What would cause you to change your mind? The fact that agreement leads to a refutation of your point?
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 07:13 PM   #4182
Humots
Critical Thinker
 
Humots's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Humots View Post
In this case, the targeted event is drawing an Ace from the Ace deck.
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
No, the event that jabba is looking at the probability of is, having drawn an Ace, that it came from the all-Ace pack.


There are 52 Aces in the all-Ace pack, and 196 in the other 49 (4 per pack).
Sorry, when I said that "the targeted event is drawing an Ace from the Ace deck," what I meant is that the targeted event is, having drawn an Ace, that it came from the all-Ace deck.

That's what Jabba is looking at the probability of. And he's still getting it wrong, and in my opinion showing he has no idea of how probability is determined. He just thinks he does, just as he thinks he knows what the "scientific method" is.

Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
ETA: And it still has nothing to do with carbon dating.
I agree, completely. I was hoping that I could get Jabba to realize his error if he was shown the correct math. No such luck.
Humots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 10:26 PM   #4183
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,599
Jabba, do you agree or disagree with the statement that even if the shroud was dated to the first century, that by itself would in no way mean it's also the burial shroud of Jesus Christ?
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 03:57 AM   #4184
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Originally Posted by Jabba
- The following is why, in broadest terms, the issue of blood and “serum clot retraction rings” is relevant to our debate re the validity of a carbon dating of the 14th century for the Shroud.
- I claim that the probability of a 14th century artist being able to create an image that includes numerous “serum clot retraction rings” on it approaches zero. Since I constitute one of the sides in this debate, my claim is relevant by definition.
- See what I mean?Dinwar,
- I think so. You're accepting that it's relevant -- just that, it's also stupid.
--- Jabba
Just because you claim something doesn't make it relevant. It certainly isn't relevant if no evidence can be produced to support their presence.

But there is evidence about the shroud, the provenance from the 14th century and the carbon dating.

Until this real data can be refuted, there is no reason to examine imaginary data.

Your unevidenced claims are not worthy of direct examination, merely more evidence of your time wasting efforts to direct discussion away from real evidence.
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 05:18 AM   #4185
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,267
I claim that the Shroud of Turin couldn't have been the burial shroud of Jesus because Jesus was a smelly poopyhead.

According to Jabba's debate rules we can now discuss how much of a smelly poopyhead Jesus was, because I'm part of this debate and I say it's relevant, so it is.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 05:28 AM   #4186
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Debate, schemate!
Is there a conspiracy or not?

And if so, is it funded from the Vatican or not?
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 06:43 AM   #4187
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating/1st century

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
Jabba, do you agree or disagree with the statement that even if the shroud was dated to the first century, that by itself would in no way mean it's also the burial shroud of Jesus Christ?
Blue,
- I wouldn't say it like that.
- I'd just say that dating the Shroud to the first century would not mean that it was the burial shroud of Jesus Christ -- it would, however, be significant evidence towards that conclusion.
--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 07:00 AM   #4188
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- I've discussed this in the past. You should probably start with post #'s 1000, 1045 and 1072. I'm sure you'll find reasons to disagree with my arguments, but they should get us started anyway.
- Jabba
All your supposed "arguments" have been dealt with and are utterly worthless.

Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
And did you read the responses that explained why none of those points about the protocol were valid objections?
If Jabba accepted the responses he'd have to accept the validity of the radiocarbon dating and the fakery of the shroud. That'd damage his world view too much.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- I read the responses that claimed to explain why none of those points about the protocol were valid objections.
--- Jabba
All of your "arguments" were dealt with, you failed to refute any of the points made and had to resort to conspiratorial ramblings.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 07:05 AM   #4189
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Explain why. Why does the probability of a 14th century artist being able to put blood on a cloth approach zero?
Because Jabba needs it to be so for this "argument" to be even remotely relevant.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Abaddon,
- It may be stupid, but it's relevant to your debate because it is one of the debate premises of your opponent. It's relevant until your opponent drops it.
--- Jabba
Rubbish. Again.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Blue,
- I wouldn't say it like that.
- I'd just say that dating the Shroud to the first century would not mean that it was the burial shroud of Jesus Christ -- it would, however, be significant evidence towards that conclusion.
--- Jabba
Nonsense. And yet you claim to understand probability.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 07:21 AM   #4190
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
All this has been gone over.
I'm actually surprised Jabba would even bring up the contamination argument yet again.
Yes they were dealt with, including the peer-reviewed paper I linked to that Jabba utterly ignored.

Anyway to re-hash:
Originally Posted by me, muself and I
As part of my on/off efforts to produce a definitive list of information about the shroud I re-read the original documentation of the radiocarbon examination process. This leads me to consider the idea of sample contamination (beloved of the shroudies) is even less likely than I'd previously considered.

Each laboratory (Zürich, Oxford and Arizona) carried out a comprehensive, multi-stage, cleaning of their sample. Firstly by microscopic examination and removal of gross contaminants, followed by preliminary cleaning using a mix of ultrasonic bathing, vacuum pipetting and/or hot ether soaking.
After this the samples were split and more stringent methods were used.

Zürich
The Zürich group split each ultrasonically cleansed sample in half; the first half of the original sample was again split into three parts and these [one sixth portions] were subjected to different tratments:
1. soaking in room temperature baths of 0.5% hydrochloric acid, 0.25% sodium hydroxide and then acid again; samples were rinsed with purified water between each course.
2. no further treatment
3. soaking in hot (80°C) 5% hydrochloric acid, 2.5% sodium hydroxide and then acid again; samples were rinsed with purified water between each course.

The second batch of samples were retained until after the first radiocarbon dating run was completed. As this showed no evidence of contamination, the second set was split into two portions, to which the weak and strong chemical treatments were applied.


Arizona
The Arizona group split the shroud sample into four subsamples.
1. one pair of subsamples was treated by soaking in dilute hydrochloric acid, dilute sodium hydroxide and again acid, with purified water rinsing in between baths.
2. the second pair of subsamples was treated with two commercial detergents (with advice supplied by Proctor & Gamble), distilled water and 0.1% hydrochloric acid; after this the samples were then submitted to a Soxhlet extraction with ethanol for an hour, followed by further washing with distilled water at 70°C in an ultrasonic bath.


Oxford
The Oxford group divided their pre-cleaned sample into three parts.
1. all three parts were bathed in 1 molar hydrochloric acid at 80°C for two hours followed by 1 molar sodium hydroxide at 80°C for two hours and again in acid, with rinsing in between.
2. two of the three samples were then bleached in 2.5% sodium oxychloride [bleach] for thirty minutes.

Each laboratory used the same techniques on the four cloth samples provided, the shroud and the three controls with one exception; one of the control samples used at Zürich disintegrated while being cleaned and so it was additionally centrifuged to retain the material.

Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
As for the protocols, who dropped them?
Is Jabba suggesting the Vatican sabotaged the testing?
Not explicitly but that's the general premise.

Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Back to the invisible patch idea, Jabba?
Really?
Classic woosterism, keep repeating the same debunked nonsense as if it's new and valid.

Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
This third post is a rehash of the other two.
Another classic wooster tactic.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 07:35 AM   #4191
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?/Probability

Humots and Zoo,

- Obviously, I hate to admit the following, but I did make the mistake that you guys claimed that I did. I was right "the second time around," but not the first, and not on my website...
- The only thing good I can say is, "Wasn't that fun?"
- But really, for me, this sort of thing is a lot of fun -- just wish I had won. I was hung up at the liklihood of drawing our ace from the normal deck being about 4 times as likely as drawing our ace from the ace deck. That's true, but it doesn't translate to a ratio of 1/4 for the ace deck -- it translates to 1/5.
- It turns out that I have made this mistake before -- I had forgotten.
- Going back to my website:
- These three guys go to a hotel (back in the old days) and rent a room. The desk clerk charges them $10 apiece. Afterwards, the clerk decides that he has charged too much and gives the bellhop $5 to return to the guests. The bellhop, being unusually savvy, realizes that the $5 will not divide evenly and decides to solve the problem by keeping two dollars for himself. Which is what he does. He gives each guest $1, which means that they each have paid $9 for the room, or $27 altogether.
- But wait a minute, the bellhop kept $2 and the guests paid $27, making a grand total of $29. What happened to the other dollar?

- Turns out, I was the guy thinking that a dollar was missing.

- I'd like to continue the probability sub-thread, but know it stretches our topic.
- But, what I will do is start a new thread entitled "Immortality!" -- or log into an existing thread that addresses that issue -- and assert my Bayesian "proof" that we are all immortal. I'll let y'all know when I do that -- in case anyone is interested. I will continue this thread -- but, I'll be even more distracted than usual. I want to do this because this immortality argument, in its holistic form, was the eppifany I had that made me religious when I was 14. This is the trunk of my tree. In that analogy, the Shroud is just an intriguing branch.
- Before I do that, however, I'll go back over the posts in the probability debate here -- I suspect that there is more to learn.

- But, I'll be back.

--- Jabba
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 08:03 AM   #4192
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
Yes they were dealt with, including the peer-reviewed paper I linked to that Jabba utterly ignored. ...
Thanks for reminding us of the measures taken by the three labs involved in the Vatican-financed testing.
Seriously, though, what possible explanation for a first century date for the TS fits the data other than a deliberate falsification of the C14 dating?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
... this immortality argument, in its holistic form, was the eppifany I had that made me religious when I was 14. This is the trunk of my tree. In that analogy, the Shroud is just an intriguing branch. ...

Do you plan on posting up the sources for your ideas about “serum clot retraction rings”?
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 08:30 AM   #4193
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Thanks for reminding us of the measures taken by the three labs involved in the Vatican-financed testing.
Seriously, though, what possible explanation for a first century date for the TS fits the data other than a deliberate falsification of the C14 dating?
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The shroudies have to ignore masses of evidence to believe their little fantasy.

Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Do you plan on posting up the sources for your ideas about “serum clot retraction rings”?
I asked him for them soon time ago. As usual with awkward questions he ignored me.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 08:39 AM   #4194
Humots
Critical Thinker
 
Humots's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, what I will do is start a new thread entitled "Immortality!" -- or log into an existing thread that addresses that issue -- and assert my Bayesian "proof" that we are all immortal. I'll let y'all know when I do that -- in case anyone is interested. I will continue this thread -- but, I'll be even more distracted than usual. I want to do this because this immortality argument, in its holistic form, was the eppifany I had that made me religious when I was 14. This is the trunk of my tree. In that analogy, the Shroud is just an intriguing branch.
- Before I do that, however, I'll go back over the posts in the probability debate here -- I suspect that there is more to learn.

- But, I'll be back.

--- Jabba
Do so. From what I have seen of your assertion, it will be exposed as absolute nonsense. Not that you will pay any attention.

By the way, it's spelled "epiphany". Use the spell checker when you post.
Humots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 08:55 AM   #4195
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The shroudies have to ignore masses of evidence to believe their little fantasy. ...
Quite right, catesmate1.
Masses of evidence.
All of which pass through those three labs, IIRC.
That's why I feel that pro-authenticity proponents are implying the errors they claim for the dating procedure stem from either gross incompetence or outright fraud.
It is a fact the Oxford lab was used recently to date some other biblical remains, so general imcompetence doesn't look to to be a viable explanation for the 'wrong' dating.

Anyway, Jabba.
How about it?
Are you going to post up your sources about “serum clot retraction rings”?

Last edited by pakeha; 18th November 2012 at 09:15 AM. Reason: forum gremlim activity
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 09:51 AM   #4196
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,599
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Blue,
- I wouldn't say it like that.
- I'd just say that dating the Shroud to the first century would not mean that it was the burial shroud of Jesus Christ -- it would, however, be significant evidence towards that conclusion.
--- Jabba
Actually, it would constitute only one piece of evidence: that it comes from the right time. Showing it came from the right place, and then the right person would be two other things entirely.

Despite all the handwaving, obfuscation, derails, irrelevancies, and general overall dodging you've done here, you have yet to show conclusively that the 14C dating is wrong. Yes, you've questioned it, and you've even shown us a couple of papers from people who also questioned it, but we've examined that evidence and found it to be useless for a variety of reasons. Therefore, the 14C date of 11th or 12th century stands. Period. End of sentence, end of conversation.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)

Last edited by Blue Mountain; 18th November 2012 at 09:55 AM.
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 10:25 AM   #4197
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
Actually, it would constitute only one piece of evidence: that it comes from the right time. Showing it came from the right place, and then the right person would be two other things entirely.

Despite all the handwaving, obfuscation, derails, irrelevancies, and general overall dodging you've done here, you have yet to show conclusively that the 14C dating is wrong. Yes, you've questioned it, and you've even shown us a couple of papers from people who also questioned it, but we've examined that evidence and found it to be useless for a variety of reasons. Therefore, the 14C date of 11th or 12th century stands. Period. End of sentence, end of conversation.
My only quibble is the word that I highlighted. It's not that Jabba hasn't shown it conclusively, he hasn't shown it at all. Every single alleged problem with the C14 data has been dealt with. The only thing he has is a vague claim of "I like this other stuff better even though it isn't supported and I can't provide sources."
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 11:05 AM   #4198
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Ah.
I see this article is no longer behind a pay-wall.

It's beyond my stars so I'd appreciate others' thoughts on it.
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 11:21 AM   #4199
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Ah.
I see this article is no longer behind a pay-wall.

It's beyond my stars so I'd appreciate others' thoughts on it.
He waves his Mathic Wand and makes the C14 results vanish.

The presence of this trend explains the difference in means that was detected by Damon et al. (1989) and in our Table 1. The effect is that of a decrease in radiocarbon age BP as x 1 increases. Our results indicate that, for whatever reasons, the structure of the TS is more complicated than that of the three fabrics with which it was compared.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 11:25 AM   #4200
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Ah.
I see.
Thanks, tsig!
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:07 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.