Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
wollery said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
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

pakeha said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
Aepervius said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
wollery said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah I changed my post after rereading.
 
Jabba said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jabba 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.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Because of the highlighted assumptions, your conclusion simply doesn't follow.
 
Jabba said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
wollery said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

wollery said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
zooterkin said:
3/39 would be 1/13.
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good grief I should take reading lessons and math lessons. ETA I skipped over and always removed the card from the deck
 
Last edited:
Carbon Dating/Smoking Gun?

Zoo,
- Do you accept that my discussion of the serum clot retraction rings is relevant to the carbon dating?
--- Jabba
 
Jabba said:
Zoo,
- Do you accept that my discussion of the serum clot retraction rings is relevant to the carbon dating?
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

It isn't. Apart from them never having been proven to be present anyway, their presence or absence is irrelevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom