U.s. Religious Knowledge Survey

[stevil]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305118176' post='2240023']
Here is a link about a famous Eucharistic miracle: [url="http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html"]http://www.therealpr...r/lanciano.html[/url]

*edit: more stuff

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle"]http://en.wikipedia....aristic_miracle[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation"]http://en.wikipedia....nsubstantiation[/url]
[/quote]
Thanks for priving the links Amppax and the ones on the other thread about not ordaining Women.

So in this case "famous Eucharistic miracle", have they thought of taking a DNA sample? If other blood or body parts, especially if another heart turns up somewhere with the same DNA, that would be pretty compelling.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1305183604' post='2240411']
So in this case "famous Eucharistic miracle", have they thought of taking a DNA sample? If other blood or body parts, especially if another heart turns up somewhere with the same DNA, that would be pretty compelling.
[/quote]
I'm not sure if they've done DNA testing, but I know that all or the vast majority of the purported Eucharistic miracles share the same blood type.

[MithLuin]

Yes, AB+ blood, which is not the most common (though hardly 'rare' either). At least, that's the blood type of both the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy as well as the Shroud of Turin.

AB+ is under 10% of most modern population, though it is slightly higher in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Hong Kong (around 7% rather than 3%). It is highest in Japan/China/Korea. Contrast this with O+, which makes up 30-40% of most populations. The negative blood types are typically less common than the positive ones, so the Rh factor is quite common.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1305211613' post='2240463']
Yes, AB+ blood, which is not the most common (though hardly 'rare' either). At least, that's the blood type of both the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, Italy as well as the Shroud of Turin.

AB+ is under 10% of most modern population, though it is slightly higher in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Hong Kong (around 7% rather than 3%). It is highest in Japan/China/Korea. Contrast this with O+, which makes up 30-40% of most populations. The negative blood types are typically less common than the positive ones, so the Rh factor is quite common.
[/quote]
am i correct in remembering that AB+ blood is the universal donor?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1305218721' post='2240507']
am i correct in remembering that AB+ blood is the universal donor?
[/quote]
Universal receiver.

[stevil]

Would it be naiive to think that the Church hasn't already had DNA sequencing done.
Maybe the results were not a match, or inconclusive or maybe they want their followers to remain faithful and believers rather than have conclusive knowledge?

Edited May 12, 2011 by stevil

[Lil Red]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1305228223' post='2240578']
Would it be naiive to think that the Church hasn't already had DNA sequencing done.
Maybe the results were not a match, or inconclusive or maybe they want their followers to remain faithful and believers rather than have conclusive knowledge?
[/quote]
i don't know about this process specifically, but for recognizing saints, the Church has (usually, I think?) non-Catholics (or agnostics/atheists?) looking over scientific evidence - so there can be no claims of tainting the evidence.

[stevil]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1305228932' post='2240583']
i don't know about this process specifically, but for recognizing saints, the Church has (usually, I think?) non-Catholics (or agnostics/atheists?) looking over scientific evidence - so there can be no claims of tainting the evidence.
[/quote]
Interesting to know.

I'm actually suggesting that DNA is available and is a much more difficult proposition to be skeptical against than merely a blood type match.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1305236885' post='2240640']
Interesting to know.

I'm actually suggesting that DNA is available and is a much more difficult proposition to be skeptical against than merely a blood type match.
[/quote]

I don't know . . . how long does DNA stay intact under atmospheric conditions? I would think that the shroud might be a bit too old to test, even if you believe that it's from the most recent potential dates. Plus it's been handled over the centuries and survived a fire . . .

Any bio-chem majors here?

[Amppax]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1305307033' post='2240906']
I don't know . . . how long does DNA stay intact under atmospheric conditions? I would think that the shroud might be a bit too old to test, even if you believe that it's from the most recent potential dates. Plus it's been handled over the centuries and survived a fire . . .

Any bio-chem majors here?
[/quote]

Nope, but i have the internet, and wikipedia has something to say about this.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling"]http://en.wikipedia....i/DNA_profiling[/url]
I have no idea what any of this means, when words start sounding scientific my brain shuts off [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif[/img]. I guess thats why I want to study History

*Edit: i'm assuming the answer to your question can be found on this page, but again I didn't read it so I have no idea [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blush.gif[/img]

Edited May 13, 2011 by Amppax

[Amppax]

I also searched wikipedia for DNA testing done on historical artifacts/remains and found that they have done DNA testing on King Tut's body (for that matter on a lot of Egyptian mummies and also Incan mummies). So i guess that would show that it is possible to test these things, provided a DNA sample could be obtained.

[JenDeMaria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305309212' post='2240923']
I also searched wikipedia for DNA testing done on historical artifacts/remains and found that they have done DNA testing on King Tut's body (for that matter on a lot of Egyptian mummies and also Incan mummies). So i guess that would show that it is possible to test these things, provided a DNA sample could be obtained.
[/quote]

The thing about DNA testing (or any other form of forensic testing for that matter) is that said testing consumes the thing which it tests -- you can only take so many samples from an object before seriously diminishing it -- which is why testing of any important historical artifact is typically rare, done only for a very good, very specific set of reasons and planned in detail in advance.

And what would further testing of the relics of Lanciano tell us anyway? It's a bit of heart tissue and human blood which have been stored in a state of incorruption in a reliquary for 500 years. As they say "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible."

[Amppax]

[quote name='JenDeMaria' timestamp='1305310820' post='2240935']
The thing about DNA testing (or any other form of forensic testing for that matter) is that said testing consumes the thing which it tests -- you can only take so many samples from an object before seriously diminishing it -- which is why testing of any important historical artifact is typically rare, done only for a very good, very specific set of reasons and planned in detail in advance.

And what would further testing of the relics of Lanciano tell us anyway? It's a bit of heart tissue and human blood which have been stored in a state of incorruption in a reliquary for 500 years.
[/quote]

Good point, however in answer to the second part, I think the suggestion was to test the DNA of the relics at Lanciano against other Eucharistic Miracles, and if there was a match, voila! However this

[quote]As they say "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible."[/quote]

is a great point. One thing that I've noticed is that people will ignore evidence if they really don't want to believe it (NOTE: i'm not accusing you of doing this Stevil, this is more of a general observation). Ultimately, it can be proven that this IS human flesh and blood, human flesh and blood that has not decayed after 12 centuries. What we can't prove (at least not scientifically) is whether it changed into flesh and blood from bread and wine, that it is a Eucharistic Miracle. However the very fact that it has stayed intact for 12 centuries without any sign of decay is very fascinating by itself. The only proof that we have that this is a Eucharistic Miracle is the story that has been passed down to us. Is that good enough for me? yes, but I can see where others would not find it satisfactory.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Amppax

[stevil]

[quote name='JenDeMaria' timestamp='1305310820' post='2240935']
And what would further testing of the relics of Lanciano tell us anyway? It's a bit of heart tissue and human blood which have been stored in a state of incorruption in a reliquary for 500 years. As they say "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible."
[/quote]
Yes DNA testing is destructive, but only a very small sample is required. As an Atheist and a skeptic, I do try to look for answers and the truth. I feel that DNA sequencing is very revealing and would be extremely hard to remain skeptical of.
You certainly cannot convict someone of a crime in court based on a blood type match, but the odds of an incorrect DNA match are extremely small.
If DNA testing were done on human tissue that was suspected of being Jesus and appeared decades apart, especially appearing after a heart of the same DNA, to me this would be pretty conclusive.

The fact that this example is in a state of incorruption is unexplained to me. I don't know why and am reluctant to make assumptions. It seems very interesting.
Scientests can only test for specific things. If they haven't tested for a particular substance then we can't 100% know that there isn't a foriegn substance involved.

But we can't fake DNA. It is far too complex. I think most rational skeptics would be convinced by solid DNA proof.
The most convincing would be if another heart appear with the same DNA.
Or if a sample was matched from an unrelated Eurochrist miracle prior to human knowledge of DNA testing and years apart from the Lanciano.

Wouldn't even Catholics be interested to know what can be revealed by looking at JC's DNA? It could conclusively show the real Eurochrist miracles and weed out the fakes (if any are fakes), it could tell us how unique JC's DNA was? Is it similar to the DNA of people from that region? I don't know if Mary's egg was used or simply her womb, but it may or may not reveal some interesting information.

Edited May 13, 2011 by stevil

[Lil Red]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1305316264' post='2240988']
Yes DNA testing is destructive, but only a very small sample is required.
[/quote]
part of the problem, though, stevil, is that over the years, different tests have come up, and different groups (for and against the Church) have demanded a 'very small sample' of differing relics and artifacts (not just this example). should the Church be required to give all who ask for a 'very small sample' that very thing? what would be left for the faithful to venerate (who need no such proof)?