Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.")

- 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
...
- 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/forums/showpost.php?p=8745113&postcount=3903

ETA.
No need to 'enter' the Atheists' Forum.
Just click on the links I've provided.



...
- #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:
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.

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.
 
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?

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.
 
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

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...........


Zoo,
- Do you accept that my discussion of the serum clot retraction rings is relevant to the carbon dating?
--- Jabba
Not even remotely.
 
You're letting him divert attention from his inability to refute the radiocarbon dating evidence with his distractions.

No, I'm not. :p

You're welcome. So, are you going to talk about carbon dating any time soon?

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.
 
#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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom