
Notices 
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. 
9th November 2012, 08:20 AM  #4001 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 12,845

To be fair it seems he start out of 50 card deck (what sort of deck is that) and so it would be more like probability the first card is an ace is 4/50 second is 3/49 which is indeed 1/13.
But it is a very weird card deck with 50 cards (not divisible by 4, so it is 48 + 2 joker, but then that means 12 cards per colour, or 110 + valet + queen and no king I know card deck with *four* heads (Valet, knight , queen , king) but none stopping at queen or not having 110. ETA: I misread this is even MORE confusing than that, he is having a deck full of ace and other deck which are normals. Which is a weird way to try to make a demonstration. But still the probability of a normal deck is 4/52 , 3/51, 2/50, 1/49 to get an ace. In a deck of ace only , you have naturally 13/52 (1/4) chance to get an ace of a certain color at first draw, then 12/52 chance to get the same color again. So the chance to draw the ace suit without repetition in the first case is : 4/52*3/51*2/50*1/49= 4!*(524)!/52!=C(52,4) if i am not incorrect it is the probability to draw 4 specific card combination (any) For the second deck with only aces you have 13*12*11*10/(52*51*50*49) ETA: forgot to lower the number of card after each draw :P Anyway: it is the usual stupid creationist argument of trying to pretend we are obviously not the product of chance therefore god 
9th November 2012, 08:30 AM  #4002 
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,664

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?
Originally Posted by Jabba
Pakeha,  In regard to your last question: I don’t know. We humans are still pretty barbaric  and surely, we were more barbaric in the 14th century than we are now. That isn’t my issue.  However, the probability of there being a person of the 14th century (or, a group of such persons) 1) willing to do the necessary flogging, 2) able to place the flogging and other wounds so accurately (including a couple of nontraditional  but probably correct  details), and 3) somehow able to get the image transferred, and transferred so effectively to the Shroud, should be damned small.  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.  Jabba Pakeha,  Keep in mind that I'm not claiming that the probability of there being a person of the 14th century (or, a group of such persons) willing to do the necessary flogging should be damned small (1); I'm saying that a combination of 1,2 and 3 should be damned small.  That these other issues have been dealt with does not mean that they have been resolved in your favor. If you think they have, show me the posts that resolve them.  You keep referring to the atheist forum  but again, to substantiate your implication here, you should let us know just which posts to which you're referring. I haven't tried to get on that forum recently, but the last time I did try, I couldn't get on  I don't know why  I don't think that they ever threatened to expel me. I'll try again. Maybe you could invite them over here...  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 "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor 

9th November 2012, 08:30 AM  #4003 
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,917

No, he starts with 50 decks of cards and picks one deck. He then draws a single card from that deck. His stated probability for drawing an ace as the first card is correct, but he then draws a second and third ace from the same deck. Assuming it's a normal deck then the probability that he draws a second ace is not 1/13 but 3/51, which is 1/17, the 3rd ace is 2 in 50, or 1/25 and the 4th ace is 1/49.
That's basic probability that you should learn at high school, and he gets it wrong. Given that he's holding this up as a sample of his statistical prowess it's less than inspiring. 
__________________
"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 

9th November 2012, 08:33 AM  #4004 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 12,845


9th November 2012, 08:40 AM  #4005 
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,917

Your underlying assumption is that the image was made over a very short period of time, i.e. in one go. But what if it was done a bit at a time, either by painting or by multiple transfers?
If there are serum retraction rings that only shows that any blood transferred to the cloth was fresh at the time it was transferred, not that it was transferred directly from a wound. It could therefore be done over several days using fresh blood each time. Without DNA it isn't possible to know that it's even human blood, it could be pig blood, or pigeon blood, or rat blood. 
__________________
"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 

9th November 2012, 09:11 AM  #4006 
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,664

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?
Wollery and Aepervius,
 You're going too fast. You're not really following what I'm saying. Slow down. See if you can find any mistakes in you're current conclusions.  We seem to have at least three statisticians here (including myself). Are there any more out there? If so, maybe you could help me show why Wollery and Aepervius are wrong. There ought to be a lot of good mathemeticians in this forum.  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 "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor 

9th November 2012, 09:18 AM  #4007 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 13,953


9th November 2012, 09:18 AM  #4008 
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,917


__________________
"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 

9th November 2012, 09:33 AM  #4009 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,455


__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something. So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..." David Mitchell 

9th November 2012, 09:57 AM  #4010 
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 35,903


__________________
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 

9th November 2012, 10:00 AM  #4011 
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,664

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?
Wollery,
 I numbered your responses above for easy reference.  I don't really understand #1. How does my argument seem to assume that a painting or transfers would have to take place in one go?  #2 is what I'm looking for. As I understand what I've read, serum retraction rings do not form around the blood per se  they form around a wound. However, I can't seem to quite nail it down. Do you know something that I don't?  #3. Various scientists have claimed that there is DNA in the "blood stains," but that it has deteriorated too much to get much info from it. I need to get moving right now, but I'll try to find some relevant links when I come 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 "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor 

9th November 2012, 10:11 AM  #4012 
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 35,903


__________________
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 

9th November 2012, 10:40 AM  #4013 
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,664


__________________
"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 "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor 

9th November 2012, 11:15 AM  #4014 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 12,845


9th November 2012, 11:27 AM  #4015 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 11,584

And once again, Jabba achieves his aim of having everyone talk about everything BUT the carbon dating.

__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? 

9th November 2012, 12:38 PM  #4016 
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 35,903


__________________
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 

9th November 2012, 12:45 PM  #4017 
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,664

Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?
Zoo,
 Do you accept that my discussion of the serum clot retraction rings is relevant to the carbon dating?  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 "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor 

9th November 2012, 12:50 PM  #4018 
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290


9th November 2012, 01:41 PM  #4019 
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 35,903


__________________
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 

9th November 2012, 01:42 PM  #4020 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 13,606


9th November 2012, 02:26 PM  #4021 
Winking at the Moon
Moderator Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 9,878

Not in the least; the two are things are not related. The carbon dating results are not affected by the presence or absence of blood, nor is the presence or absence of blood probative of either a first century or a 14th century date.
These little distractions that keep being brought up by you seem to prevent you from addressing the carbon dating results. 
__________________
Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure  Nationalcosmopolitan 

9th November 2012, 03:38 PM  #4022 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 12,845

Not the slightiest as told you by people about 100 time.
I get the feeling that you are a frequentist and not a bayesian http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/frequent..._bayesians.png 
9th November 2012, 03:47 PM  #4023 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,333


9th November 2012, 04:02 PM  #4024 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,674

Than you understand that the shroud being an imprint has no bearing on the probability of C14 dating being wrong; that you need to show what you're basing your assessments off of; that those assessments must be based off of more than mere opinion; and that you should now show your work. You've yet to demonstrate an understanding of any of these things. This is largely because you refuse to allow for the possibility that the shroud is a fraud, which is a critical failing for a statistician (you're not seeing the whole system, and you've admitted as much numerous times, so how can you hope to describe it?).
Let me be clear: You said you are a statistician. You therefore need to provide the math showing how you derived your probability data. The rest of us have lived up to our profesional obligationstime for you to put up or shut up. (For the record, while I am not and do not claim to be a statistician, work with population dynamics and ecology gives one a good foundation for basic statistical analysis. So you don't get to back out by saying "You wouldn't understand.")
Quote:

9th November 2012, 04:08 PM  #4025 
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,917

I've just reread the whole screed and although it doesn't specify when you get to the 50 pack part that the aces are returned and the deck shuffled it does appear that this is what he's doing. In that case his argument is flawed. Although the probability becomes incredibly small after a few aces are drawn it never formally becomes zero.
So his maths isn't the problem, it's his application of it that is. If you read the next two webpages you'll see that he then applies this reasoning to the anthropic principle. The problem is that the anthropic principle is a posteriori reasoning. Jabba compares the probability that he was born to drawing an ace from the pack. He reasons that he's the ace of spades, his mother was the ace of diamonds and his father was the ace of clubs. the problem is that in reality he's the three of clubs, his mother was the six of diamonds and his father was the seven of hearts. Jabba, I don't expect you to understand this, but give it a try. You were born because a certain sperm from your father joined forces with a particular egg from your mother. Now suppose that it had been a different sperm and a different egg a month earlier. Instead of getting Jabba your parents would have had a girl called Muriel who went on to be an English teacher. Let's suppose it's the same egg but a different sperm. Then your parents got a boy called James who became an engineer. You're just an ordinary card drawn from an ordinary deck. Your mistake is in thinking that, because the probability that you would be born given that all of the people you are descended from had a low probability of being born, you are somehow special. You aren't. The probability that Muriel or James would be born was exactly the same as the probability that you would be born. You're the three of clubs, Muriel would have been the nine of spades and James would have been the Jack of hearts. You're not special, you just happened to be the next card in the randomly shuffled deck. In the example of the cards that you give we know a priori that there's a deck made entirely of aces. but suppose that you don't know that. Suppose that you have no idea how many packs there are or what cards are in those packs to start with. All you know is that you get a pack of cards and draw cards from it. What's the probability that the cards you draw are from a special pack? You have no way of knowing. You don't know what cards are supposed to be in a normal deck, you don't know how many decks there are and you don't know whether there are any special decks. The probability that any given pack will be in a specific order is 8x10^{67}. And yet every single time you shuffle a deck it appears in an order with a probability of just 8x10^{67}. Does that mean that every single shuffle of a pack of cards is guided by a higher intelligence? Of course not. When you shuffle a deck of cards it has to have one, and only one, configuration. Which configuration that happens to be is pure random chance (unless you're a very good magician!), but the probability of that specific configuration occurring was 8x10^{67}. So the approach that Jabba takes in arguing that the probability of his being born is vanishingly small without a guiding intelligence is a red herring. The probability that Muriel would have been born was identically small, as was the probability that James would have been born. Someone was going to be born, it just happened, by pure random chance, that it was Jabba. That's the way the standard deck of cards was shuffled. No supreme guiding intelligence required. 
__________________
"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 

9th November 2012, 04:20 PM  #4026 
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 35,903

As I read it, he's only drawing one card from a pack in that scenario. It's the first one, right at the beginning, where the card is put back in before another one is drawn from the same pack. No probabilities are given for that, though.
And now you've made me read the whole thing, I see that the 50 is the number of packs, not cards. And still none of this is anything 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 

10th November 2012, 12:48 AM  #4027 
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 7,948


__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things"  Terry Pratchett 

10th November 2012, 03:26 AM  #4028 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,333

I've posted up this information several times, but I have no problem in posting it again:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3903 ETA. No need to 'enter' the Atheists' Forum. Just click on the links I've provided. I'm looking forward to reading your links. Will they be the same ones you've posted before, or have you done some fresh investigation since your previous attempts to discuss what you claim is blood on that 14th century cloth? 
10th November 2012, 05:50 AM  #4029 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 13,606


10th November 2012, 05:51 AM  #4030 
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,482


__________________
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 newborn 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. 

10th November 2012, 05:56 AM  #4031 
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,482


__________________
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 newborn 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. 

10th November 2012, 06:20 AM  #4032 
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 35,903


__________________
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 

10th November 2012, 07:14 AM  #4033 
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,482


__________________
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 newborn 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. 

10th November 2012, 08:07 AM  #4034 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,674

Quote:

10th November 2012, 08:12 AM  #4035 
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,013

Yup. His examples of 50 decks of 50 cards each, one of which was all Aces, are as muddled as everything posted here. Hint  if you are going to choose a deck of cards for your example, just use the deck of cards to make your point. Then again, when your point is "God made a miracle" you are skipping logical steps in any case.

10th November 2012, 09:57 AM  #4036 
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,403


10th November 2012, 10:13 AM  #4037 
Membership Drive
CoOrdinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 14,784

No.
IF there WERE actual "serum clot retraction rings" on the cloth; AND IF there WERE actual "scourge marks" represented on the image on the cloth; AND IF the image on the cloth WERE anatomically correct rather than stylized; AND IF the image showed the kind of mapping distortion that would come from "wrapping" the cloth around the figure; ...none of that would have any bearing on the fact that ^{14}C dating demonstrates that the cloth is a medieval artifact. 
__________________
"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 

10th November 2012, 11:01 AM  #4038 
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woowoo in Winnipeg
Posts: 4,827

Even more to the point, EVEN IF the radiocarbon dating on the cloth showed definitively it was first century, it would in no way prove it was the cloth used in Jesus' burial.

__________________
The social illusion reigns today upon all the heapedup 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) Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum. 

10th November 2012, 11:44 AM  #4039 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,333


10th November 2012, 03:13 PM  #4040 
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 300

I believe that in .../ACT2Scene1.php Jabba miscalculated the probability of having drawn a card from the AllAce deck.
This is an example of conditional probability: the probability that an event would have, given that another event has occurred. In this case, the probability we want is the probability that, given that an Ace has been drawn, the Ace was drawn from the allAce deck. Let's represent this probability by the expression P(AllAce deckAce drawn). Bayes’ theorem (see …/wiki/Bayes’_theorem) states that for conditional probabilities A and B, P(AB) = ( P(BA) * P(A) ) / ( P(B) ) In this case, for A = AllAce deck and B = Ace drawn, P(AllAce deckAce drawn) = ( P(Ace drawnAllAce deck) * P(AllAce deck) ) / ( P(Ace drawn) ) For Jabba’s example, P(Ace drawnAllAce deck) = 1.0 since the AllAce deck contains Aces only; P(AllAce deck) = 1 / 50 = 0.02; P(Ace drawn) = P(Ace drawn  AllAce deck) * P(AllAce deck) + P(Ace drawn  not AllAce deck) * P(not AllAce deck) = 1.0 * (1/50) + (1/13) * (49/50) = 0.02 + 0.075385 So, P(AllAce deckAce drawn) = (1.0 * .02) / (0.02 + 0.075385) = .02 / 0.09538 = 0.2097, which is slightly better than 1 chance in 5. While this is not that far from Jabba’s result ( 0.07538 / .02 ) which he called 1 in 4, it indicates to me that Jabba misapplied conditional probability, and probably Bayes’s Theorem, by leaving out one term and getting the expression upside down. This does not support Jabba's claim to be a certified Statistician (whatever that means). It looks to me like Jabba is cutting and pasting a few statistical arguments he understands poorly if at all. 
Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  

