I don't believe this is true.MC might choose to say that I probably don't believe it because of a refusal to deny Christian or Creator brainwashing,I would reply that I don't believe it because the anticreator advocates,aetheists would be bombarding the media to ''tell the World'' and the various media would be splashing the headlines.
This would be the ''hottest'' news event ,ahead of wars or even videos of a Obama taking up the butt!

Stan the only reason it is not making world headlines is that in general science does not sell newspapers or attract viewers. I far as I can tell this research has been going on for years and as would be the protocol, double, triple, however many times repeated and checked.
The Atheists among us are actually rather excited, this is big news!
Personally I don't see why it should affect anyone's faith, it does not prove there is not a God if that's what you choose to believe. Maybe God put those first simple building blocks of life in the same place for a reason. Not my belief but just a thought.

BKKSTAN wrote:I don't believe this is true.MC might choose to say that I probably don't believe it because of a refusal to deny Christian or Creator brainwashing,I would reply that I don't believe it because the anticreator advocates,aetheists would be bombarding the media to ''tell the World'' and the various media would be splashing the headlines.
This would be the ''hottest'' news event ,ahead of wars or even videos of a Obama taking up the butt!

Is it that you don't believe it Stan, or are you just sceptical?

After all, a reasonable conclusion, based on your stated logic, would be that if something does make enough news and headlines around the world, it must be true.

For example, Bush lied about WMDs as an excuse to invade Iraq

Tilo, how do you think people that do not work in the field, such as myself, found out about this?
Maybe internet and TV??? And you may note I made a post regarding this on another thread well before Michael C started this one.
As for the Noble Prize, I would be surprised if its not the winner.
What does the Biology Teacher want, a full grown chimp from a lump of sugar in 5 minutes? David Copperfield might be able to do but it took nature 4 billion years!

The earlier two posts with abstracts and accompanying news stories fit together in the explanation of the thread title. The second post: self-sustaining replication of an RNA enzyme, is the actual life within RNA enzymes, which was important but meaningless in the explanation of abiogenesis without the first post: synthesis of RNA molecules. Life was actually synthesised in the lab in the second post, but it was unknown concerning what chemical reactions had taken place in order for RNA to come into existence in the first place (explained in the original post). Both of these important discoveries were made this year within months of each other. In the original post we have the first important step in life and in the second post is life itself. Now all the steps are in place to give us the complete explanation of life. That does not mean there is much more to learn about it, but makes this explanation of Abiogenesis more than a mere hypothesis.

Hope that this now explains the title of the thread; although, maybe I should have put the two items together for greater clarity in the original post instead of adding it the next day, because the second post actually fits the thread title better. The date on the New York Times article was 13 May 2009, under science.