ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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

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.
Tags pareidolia , shroud of turin

Closed Thread
Old 9th November 2012, 08:20 AM   #4001
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,679
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
Once you've drawn an ace from a normal pack of cards the probability of drawing a second ace is 3/51, not 1/13. The 3rd ace is 2/50 (1/25) and 4th ace is 1/49.

Colour me unimpressed with your statistical abilities.
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 1-10 + valet + queen and no king I know card deck with *four* heads (Valet, knight , queen , king) but none stopping at queen or not having 1-10.

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!*(52-4)!/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

Last edited by Aepervius; 9th November 2012 at 09:45 AM.
Aepervius 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 9th November 2012, 08:30 AM   #4002
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
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 non-traditional -- 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

Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
I simply cannot believe you take 1) seriously.
2) and 3) have been dealt with already.
Or have you forgotten the posts I've drawn your attention to?

We already know the serum clot retraction rings are nothing more than figments of imagination.
Have you really forgotten the discussion at the Atheists' Forum?
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
"Tra gli argomenti, colui che ricorre alla meno sarcasmo dovrebbe essere selezionata." 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 9th November 2012, 08:30 AM   #4003
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
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 1-10 + valet + queen and no king I know card deck with *four* heads (Valet, knight , queen , king) but none stopping at queen or not having 1-10.
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
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 9th November 2012, 08:33 AM   #4004
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,679
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
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.
Yeah I changed my post after rereading.
Aepervius 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 9th November 2012, 08:40 AM   #4005
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Originally Posted by 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
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
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 9th November 2012, 09:11 AM   #4006
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
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
"Tra gli argomenti, colui che ricorre alla meno sarcasmo dovrebbe essere selezionata." 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 9th November 2012, 09:18 AM   #4007
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,733
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Resume,
- Obviously, this will only meet with derision, but I can't resist pointing it out anyway -- I'm actually a certified Statistician, and LOVE probability.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
.
- 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
Because of the highlighted assumptions, your conclusion simply doesn't follow.
Resume 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 9th November 2012, 09:18 AM   #4008
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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
How about you, a certified statistician, explain what's wrong with our objection to your example?

Why is the probability of drawing a second ace from a normal pack of cards 1/13?
__________________
"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 9th November 2012, 09:33 AM   #4009
Filippo Lippi
Graduate Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
How about you, a certified statistician, explain what's wrong with our objection to your example?

Why is the probability of drawing a second ace from a normal pack of cards 1/13?
Goddidit
__________________
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." - Richard Dawkins
Filippo Lippi 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 9th November 2012, 09:57 AM   #4010
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Moderator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 29,045
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
Once you've drawn an ace from a normal pack of cards the probability of drawing a second ace is 3/51, not 1/13. The 3rd ace is 2/50 (1/25) and 4th ace is 1/49.

Colour me unimpressed with your statistical abilities.
It does say "You place the ace back in the deck" after the first card is drawn, so I assume that is done each time.

ETA: Of course that doesn't explain why there are only 50 cards to start with.
__________________
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

Last edited by zooterkin; 9th November 2012 at 10:01 AM.
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 9th November 2012, 10:00 AM   #4011
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

Originally Posted by wollery View Post
1) 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?

2) 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. 3) 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.
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
"Tra gli argomenti, colui che ricorre alla meno sarcasmo dovrebbe essere selezionata." 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 9th November 2012, 10:11 AM   #4012
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Moderator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 29,045
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
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.
3/39 would be 1/13.
__________________
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
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 9th November 2012, 10:40 AM   #4013
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
It does say "You place the ace back in the deck" after the first card is drawn, so I assume that is done each time...
Zoo,
- Thanks.
--- 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
"Tra gli argomenti, colui che ricorre alla meno sarcasmo dovrebbe essere selezionata." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 9th November 2012 at 10:41 AM.
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 9th November 2012, 11:15 AM   #4014
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,679
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
3/39 would be 1/13.
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
It does say "You place the ace back in the deck" after the first card is drawn, so I assume that is done each time.

ETA: Of course that doesn't explain why there are only 50 cards to start with.
Good grief I should take reading lessons and math lessons. ETA I skipped over and always removed the card from the deck

Last edited by Aepervius; 9th November 2012 at 11:19 AM.
Aepervius 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 9th November 2012, 11:27 AM   #4015
abaddon
Philosopher
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,276
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?
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 9th November 2012, 12:38 PM   #4016
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Moderator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 29,045
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- Thanks.
--- Jabba
You're welcome. So, are you going to talk about carbon dating any time soon?
__________________
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
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 9th November 2012, 12:45 PM   #4017
Jabba
Master Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,387
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
"Tra gli argomenti, colui che ricorre alla meno sarcasmo dovrebbe essere selezionata." 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 9th November 2012, 12:50 PM   #4018
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- Do you accept that my discussion of the serum clot retraction rings is relevant to the carbon dating?
--- Jabba
It isn't. Apart from them never having been proven to be present anyway, their presence or absence is irrelevant.
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 9th November 2012, 01:41 PM   #4019
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Moderator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 29,045
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- Do you accept that my discussion of the serum clot retraction rings is relevant to the carbon dating?
--- Jabba
Not in the least.
__________________
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
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 9th November 2012, 01:42 PM   #4020
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,430
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- Do you accept that my discussion of the serum clot retraction rings is relevant to the carbon dating?
--- Jabba
No.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 9th November 2012, 02:26 PM   #4021
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,708
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- Do you accept that my discussion of the serum clot retraction rings is relevant to the carbon dating?
--- Jabba
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.
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

Last edited by Agatha; 9th November 2012 at 02:28 PM.
Agatha 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 9th November 2012, 03:38 PM   #4022
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,679
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- Do you accept that my discussion of the serum clot retraction rings is relevant to the carbon dating?
--- Jabba
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
Aepervius 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 9th November 2012, 03:47 PM   #4023
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,333
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- Do you accept that my discussion of the serum clot retraction rings is relevant to the carbon dating?
--- Jabba
So far, no one seems to think you've shown there is actually any blood on the 14th century cloth, much less its presence could be relevant to the C14 dating.
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 9th November 2012, 04:02 PM   #4024
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,589
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Resume,
- Obviously, this will only meet with derision, but I can't resist pointing it out anyway -- I'm actually a certified Statistician, and LOVE probability.
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 obligations--time 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:
- Do you accept that my discussion of the serum clot retraction rings is relevant to the carbon dating?
No one should. Even if you're right--and it's far from proven that you are, and in fact you almost certainly are not--all that'd prove is that blood was involved somehow. Considering 14th century monks were self-flagelating to the point where various orders established rules so they would stop killing off members and the fact that flogging and whipping were common, in many cases obligatory, legal procedures, finding a person beat bloody would be remarkably easy. The artist could have even done it to himself, AND BE HELD IN MORE ESTIME BY THE COMUNITY FOR IT.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
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 9th November 2012, 04:08 PM   #4025
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
It does say "You place the ace back in the deck" after the first card is drawn, so I assume that is done each time.
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
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 9th November 2012, 04:20 PM   #4026
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Moderator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 29,045
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
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.
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
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 10th November 2012, 12:48 AM   #4027
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 6,137
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
If you read the next two webpages you'll see that he then applies this reasoning to the anthropic principle.
Good grief.

None of my ancestors died childless, Jabba. What are the odds against that, eh?
__________________
"The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.
Pixel42 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 10th November 2012, 03:26 AM   #4028
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,333
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- 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
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.



Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- #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
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?

Last edited by pakeha; 10th November 2012 at 03:28 AM. Reason: ETA
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 10th November 2012, 05:50 AM   #4029
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,430
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
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.
Well, technically, I'd say that it's generally agreed that a human shuffler has higher intelligence than a pack of cards.

Quote:
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.
Or, to put it another way - the chances of any particular person winning the lottery is 14m to 1. Yet, almost every week, someone does.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 10th November 2012, 05:51 AM   #4030
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,722
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
How about you, a certified statistician, explain what's wrong with our objection to your example?

Why is the probability of drawing a second ace from a normal pack of cards 1/13?
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
It does say "You place the ace back in the deck" after the first card is drawn, so I assume that is done each time.

ETA: Of course that doesn't explain why there are only 50 cards to start with.
You're letting him divert attention from his inability to refute the radiocarbon dating evidence with his distractions.
__________________
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.
catsmate1 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 10th November 2012, 05:56 AM   #4031
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,722
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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
What ha sthis got to do with your inability to disprove the radiocarbon dating?
Remember? That's what you claimed to be addressing...........


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- Do you accept that my discussion of the serum clot retraction rings is relevant to the carbon dating?
--- Jabba
Not even remotely.
__________________
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.
catsmate1 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 10th November 2012, 06:20 AM   #4032
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Moderator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 29,045
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
You're letting him divert attention from his inability to refute the radiocarbon dating evidence with his distractions.
No, I'm not.

Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
You're welcome. So, are you going to talk about carbon dating any time soon?
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
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
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 10th November 2012, 07:14 AM   #4033
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,722
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
No, I'm not.
Sorry, more of a general comment.
__________________
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.
catsmate1 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 10th November 2012, 08:07 AM   #4034
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,589
Quote:
#3. Various scientists have claimed that there is DNA in the "blood stains,"
Just a quick thought: The shroud is woven from plant fibers. Thus, there'd necessarily be plant DNA in it, wouldn't there be? I mean, you'd expect DNA to be all over the place, so finding it in one part of the shroud is completely unremarkable.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
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 10th November 2012, 08:12 AM   #4035
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,431
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
And once again, Jabba achieves his aim of having everyone talk about everything BUT the carbon dating.
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.
carlitos 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 10th November 2012, 09:57 AM   #4036
IanS
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,666
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- Do you accept that my discussion of the serum clot retraction rings is relevant to the carbon dating?
--- Jabba


Can you give a link to the photos which have convinced you that scourge marks and clot retraction rings are present on the shroud?

I’d like to see how clear these marks are.
IanS 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 10th November 2012, 10:13 AM   #4037
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...
Posts: 9,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- Do you accept that my discussion of the serum clot retraction rings is relevant to the carbon dating?
--- Jabba
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 14C dating demonstrates that the cloth is a medieval artifact.
__________________
"If you find somebody to love in this world, you better hang on tooth and nail--The wolf is always at the door..." -Don Henley
"Justice is often messy, slow, expensive and inconvenient. Tyranny is quicker and cheaper and theocracy neat as a pin, but it's a poor bargain for those not on the winning side of the day."-bruto
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 10th November 2012, 11:01 AM   #4038
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 4,171
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
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 14C dating demonstrates that the cloth is a medieval artifact.
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.
  • It does not agree with the burial described in the Bible
  • Jesus was not the only person who died in Jerusalem that century. Heck, the Bible tells us of two other people who died the same day.
__________________
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)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is online now   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 10th November 2012, 11:44 AM   #4039
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,333
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Just a quick thought: The shroud is woven from plant fibers. Thus, there'd necessarily be plant DNA in it, wouldn't there be? I mean, you'd expect DNA to be all over the place, so finding it in one part of the shroud is completely unremarkable.
Hmmm.
I'm going to crack a Bulgarian beer and reread the material I have bookmarked on the subject of 'blood' on the shroud cloth and then see what's out there that I may have missed.
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 10th November 2012, 03:13 PM   #4040
Humots
Thinker
 
Humots's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 237
I believe that in .../ACT2Scene1.php Jabba miscalculated the probability of having drawn a card from the All-Ace 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 all-Ace deck.

Let's represent this probability by the expression P(All-Ace deck|Ace drawn).

Bayes’ theorem (see …/wiki/Bayes’_theorem) states that for conditional probabilities A and B,

P(A|B) = ( P(B|A) * P(A) ) / ( P(B) )

In this case, for A = All-Ace deck and B = Ace drawn,

P(All-Ace deck|Ace drawn) =
( P(Ace drawn|All-Ace deck) * P(All-Ace deck) ) /
( P(Ace drawn) )

For Jabba’s example,

P(Ace drawn|All-Ace deck) = 1.0 since the All-Ace deck contains Aces only;

P(All-Ace deck) = 1 / 50 = 0.02;

P(Ace drawn) = P(Ace drawn | All-Ace deck) * P(All-Ace deck) +
P(Ace drawn | not All-Ace deck) * P(not All-Ace deck)
= 1.0 * (1/50) + (1/13) * (49/50)
= 0.02 + 0.075385

So, P(All-Ace deck|Ace 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.
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
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

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 06:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.