This test wouldn’t show the relationship of Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I – until recently paternity was a pretty iffy question.

There isn’t enough information to draw conclusions. More data is needed, but there doesn’t appear to be much available.

But seems they make $$$ just by stirring up the controversy…so hard to stop them from having any inclination to refrain.

One of the annoying things about Middle Eastern archæology is that it is controlled by the local governments which put a higher value on politics than scholarship. Many of the “scholars” are dependent on funding from groups that have agendas that don’t permitted knowledge for its own sake.

And I’ll have to check out PZ’s take on the evidence here.

One other group going gaga over these not-very-new and not-very-trustworthy findings, however, are the militant atheists. Several of them were crowing all over this morning’s diary thread on the MSNBC coverage at Big Orange this morning. Given that they still seem to think that an assertion is the same thing as proof, however, it’s been fun toying with them.

If you have traveled in Europe and around the Med you would know you can find “relics” everywhere: Turin has the “Shroud”, Trier has the “Robe”, there are bones an bits from various saints at every city, village, and town, and some of them are known to be frauds, but they have been frauds for so long they are still revered.

Facts have nothing to do with belief, in truth once a belief is proven, it is no longer a belief.

The movie will do well if the wingers attack it, look at the Da Vinci Code.