Have you tried googling this topic in the last decade … or two? What leads you to believe the basic processes forming nucleotides and polymers are NOT ongoing? It’s not like chemistry can just stop.
From what I read (and I’m not a biochemist) it appears these processes make (among other things) Iron-Sulphur compounds which are “yummy food” for living cells.
What do you mean, “So what?”? It’s a prediction for the lack of evidence for the naturalistic origin of life, which you believe is not possible. That is what you want, is it not? OoL research is an ongoing stream of material evidence pointing towards natural origins of life.
Turn this question around and consider an atheist asking for material evidence of God, noting that evidence is never forthcoming (That’s not my position, just an example).
As for “saving some researchers from a Sisyphean fate”, have you learned nothing from the researchers you engage with? We live for tough questions, for cracking open scientific puzzles, and the joy of discovery. We don’t do this for fame or money; most could get better salaries in industry and the vast majority of scientists are never famous. We do it because it is immensely satisfying work.
Evidence dating back to the dawn of the scientific revolution shows that scientific progress is anything but Sisyphean. This is a trite claim among Creationists who don’t know any better. But you know better, or you should. After all the time you spend engaging with scientists, how could you fail to notice the passion scientists have for their work? It is not entirely unlike the passion you have for apologetics.
Also, when it comes to Sisyphean fates, you might not want to make a comparison between scientific progress and “apologetic progress” (if that is even a thing?). One of these has a distinct material advantage. 
How do you figure exactly?
There can be value in exploring avenues of research that may not yield results. Some times to get the right answer, you have to first explore a bunch of wrong answers.
Further, if eventually it did turn out that the supernatural was involved in creating life, that in itself should open a whole new avenue of research into how that process works.
It’s also inexplicable to me that creationists and ID proponents seem to have zero interest in exploring the latter.
That’s not what you wrote:
“Futile” would necessarily mean not “fruitful in gaining knowledge.”
How would you possibly have an informed opinion on that? You’re afraid to look.
So you’re just trying to hide your fear of learning more?
It can’t be a prediction of your hypothesis, as it is the premise of your hypothesis. You’re going in circles.
If that’s true, shouldn’t this belief greatly assist creationist researchers in making discoveries that improve human health and alleviate human suffering?
This. Contributing something new to human knowledge, no matter how small, is the most satisfying aspect.
Yet it’s something from which every trained scientist who embraces IDcreationism walks away.
I have to disagree with that. At some level, they clearly do know better. Otherwise, those with training would be producing data, not rhetoric. Creationist laypeople who truly don’t know any better would have no hesitation in learning about biology in the greatest depth instead of skimming the surface on the basis of hearsay and outright lies.
There’s nothing magical about digital information, but all other known examples of digital information come from an intelligent mind.
The main thing is that the coded digital information stored on DNA is being accessed and translated to produce the proteins and rna that are necessary for life. It’s an active system.
You are stuck with tree rings as a comparison. Tree rings are not being used by any process to access and use information for any purpose. There is no mapping of groups of tree rings that code for something else the way a codon of nucleotide bases codes for an amino acid. The tree rings are the result of the growth of the tree whereas the information stored on DNA can be used to produce results.
Will it?
The aminoacyl trna synthetase puts the amino acid and tRNA in close proximity. How does that happen without the synthetase? Random luck?
THe aminoacyl trna synthetase also puts the amino acid in the correct orientation on the tRNA. It isn’t “upside down” or “backwards”. How does that happen without the synthetase?
Who is talking about enzymes as being magical?
This assumes that a non-catalytic system existed. It also ignores that a hypothetical system would have been subject to natural degradation, like hydrolysis.
Removing one of the synthetases isn’t quite the same thing as making the charging of tRNA non-catalytic.
Yet your argument here seems that God could not or did not create a universe with the necessary and sufficient conditions to achieve His purpose. How much poofing do you think was needed to arrive at our world today?
Yes.
Yes.
Just as the amino acid is in close proximity to the synthesase by random luck.
The amino acid won’t bind if its in a different orientation. Just as it won’t bind to the synthesase if it’s in a different orientation. So, random luck plus chemical attraction.
You may be spotting a theme here.
All chemical reactions occur due to molecules coming into proximity through random luck. Catalysts just reduce the odds.
Both false and irrelevan’t. For one thing human beings make use of the information in tree rings.
Second (and more importantly): Whether information is being actively used has zero bearing on whether it is digital information or not. I have some old hard drives I replaced laying around somewhere not being used, and probably never will to be frank. Still, it’s digital information on them.
Completely irrelevant to whether it is digital information.
All of chemistry is random luck, even with enzymes involved. The substrates float around in solution until they randomly encounter the enzyme active site. Enzymes lower the activation energy barrier required for the reaction to occur. But yes all chemical reactions do have some level of spontaneous rate of reaction (usually much lower than the rate catalyzed by enzymes).
But energy can in fact randomly be imparted to the molecules (either by being knocked into by neighboring molecules with sufficient force, or by excitation by photons of the correct wavelength such as in light-driven chemical reactions) so they can overcome this energy barrier and the reaction can proceed spontaneously. Chemical reactions are all temperature dependent, so increasing the temperature will usually speed up the reaction simply because the increased temperature will basically put more energy into the molecules so they are more likely to overcome the activation energy barrier. It’s why freezing or cooling your food slows the rate of degradation, and why heating and cooking it does the opposite.
This is high school chemistry stuff, really.
Just for context theaz101 has messed up the quotations in his post. Those are my words you are responding to. I keep wondering why these creationists are convinced that God has made it impossible for life to originate naturally. I don’t think there’s biblical support for that, is there?
Not a bait & switch because that isn’t my point. I was responding to the idea that we need to know why the designer made certain choices in order to explain it.
As in:
An explanation is something that provides reasons why things are the way they are. But you are not explaining why anything is the way it is as opposed to being different in some way. No matter what we find you can rationalize it as “what a designer wanted”, but since anything can potentially be what a designer wants, you’re not explaining why it is THIS way as opposed to another. It is therefore not an explanation at all.
Why did the builders of Stonehenge build it the way that did and not some other way? We don’t need to know the answer to determine that it was designed and built rather than the result of natural forces like erosion.
What I said before would falsify creation (at least for me): observing ongoing natural processes that led to the origin of life. Formation of nucleotides from ribose/phosphate/base. Formation of polymers. Formation of polymers that have some function. And so on. A “bottom up” process.
One other thing. You said that we conclude Stonehenge is designed because we know humans can build structures and we know that humans exist.
I view proteins and functional rna as functional structures that are created from sequential information. Not only the sequential (digital and coded) information stored on DNA, but the sequential nature of proteins and rna themselves.
When you see a representation of the transcription/translation processes, with all of the different parts performing their respective functions in a coordinated and systematic way, I don’t see how anyone can’t see design. Especially seeing that all of the different parts are produced by the the very processes that they are performing.
This is not true. Many of the founders believed that the supernatural was the cause of what they were studying (nature) even if they didn’t think that nature was
supernatural in operation. Which is exactly what I believe.
Chemistry is not magic, but chemistry works according the God’s design.
Kepler’s quote, for example:
“Science is the process of thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
And Newton:
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One.
I asked you the post # of where you made this offer and you didn’t give it.
Why don’t you just post the paper and be done with it?
has not been chemically altered by a protein
Your whole spiel falls apart because you’re wrong about this.
Absolutely
The papers that you linked to don’t support translation at all because, as you admitted, it isn’t reading an mRNA template. You don’t have a codon to translate.
Your papers only show that ribozymes have catalytic function which is something that I’ve never denied.
You described Darwinian evolution (mutation + natural selection) without providing for replication. Without a method of replication, you’re just waving your hands.
“I can’t imaging why the creator would do it this way” = personal incredulity.
This is why I think the prediction of RNA World is pointless.
How does the prediction (a ribozyme performs a limited (but important) role in the translation process) confirm the hypothesis (“RNA did everything”)?
More personal incredulity.
What do you mean by “stage” and where did you find this so-called hypothesis?
Here’s a question for you: How would one determine that stones at Stonehenge were shaped by humans versus natural forces like erosion?
How do you think we can distinguish those two things?
Ah, yes, your post at 578.
So that does remain a question for @theaz101. If God can create, why not by the nature He created?