Bible had exactly described the structure of the DNA and ATP

I have read the article “God vs. Science” by David Van Biema on the current issue of Time. I think that is the continuation of the debate that started hundred of years ago. Why weren’t they able to end? Because both of them don’t have incontestable evidences to confirm whether the Bible was the Words come from God or not. They contain a lot of biological knowledge to let them to believe what is the power behind the origin of the organism in the world. I am sure they completely know the detail of the structure and functions of the DNA molecule. But they have not read the articles published on the xkxy at Oct. 5, 2006: “The Concordance of Ezekiel's Vision with DNA” and “Ezekiel’s Vision and ATP Synthesis System”. The articles indicated that the Bible had exact description of the structure and functions of the DNA molecule and ATP Synthesis System that were discovered within the last hundred years in science laboratories. So I hope WHO can send the two articles to Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, their commentary of the articles will reveal the final winner of the hundred-year debate: whether God existed. Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

Would you like to debate anything? Perhaps the validity of the articles you describe. Perhaps you can point to an English language link and then describe the evidence for the position. Also, for ease of reading, try breaking your paragraphs up a little. What you have there is just on the edge of readable for me, but others might find it awkward to read, and any more information would make it hard work.Welcome to EvC, take a look around at other proposed topics to see the kind of thing that tends to get promoted, and participate in a few existing threads to get a feel of the place.If you are indeed Dongsheng Zhang, then please know, that this isn't a board to simply advertise your own articles, but feel free to describe them to us. I'm removing the links from your post for the time being lest this simply be a shameless plug.

I hope use the simple style to express the miraculous topic: DNA and Ezekiel’s code, but I fill it is so difficult. I planed to post the tow articles, but they indeed too long too difficult to read, and I can not post the illustrations, so I link it to original articles’ web site, for readers easy to read and understanding it, then they maybe discuses the topic. This is a new and challenge topic, no one know anything about the “DNA and Ezekiel’s code” before they read the articles. You misunderstand me and removed the link, the readers will lost the chance to understanding the novel topic and to discuses it. Edited by Dongsheng Zhang, : No reason given.

Hi. If you cannot express or summarize the articles, how can anybody hope to discuss it? A scan of one article discusses 'wheels within wheels' in a biochemistry context. Is that the main focus? Perhaps you can list some of the best evidences in the article which discuss how the Bible exactly describes the structure of DNA and ATP?I removed the links because we do not debate a single link here at EvC. Nor is EvC a medium to increase visitor hits on websites, or for your own articles. We discuss and debate here.Experience has shown that topics are much more constructive when the person who posts the thread understands what they are posting and the thread is focussed sufficiently to avoid it becoming a catch-all topic about everything. The best way to divine if somebody understands the topic is for them to explain it to others, using appropriate links for support - including the article if you so desire.If however, you decide that the articles are too difficult to read, then I can only conclude you don't understand them. In that case, where do we go? If you don't understand the article, it might be better to word your original post (OP) in a more questioning manner rather than an assertive one.Do you want to discuss the contents, to explore their accuracy in an opened minded manner? Do you want to assert that they are true, despite not understanding them? We have a number of fora here so how would you like it addressed?It could be that you want to explore the inerrancy of the Bible in a scientific and critical fashion - are the claims in the article claims of science, do they prove the Bible is the truth? Then it would go in The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy. Perhaps you'd rather explore the validity of using the Bible to come to the conclusions in the paper, whether what the passages say is what the article says they mean: Bible Study. Finally you might consider this as creationist evidence of God as creator of life, to be discussed in that fashion. Then it might be better in Theological Creationism and ID.What, and how you want this to be discussed should be part of the first post so that people will know what kind of topic it is. As it stands, I wouldn't consider the OP specific enough to warrant promoting.Another Admin may be happy to promote, of course.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

---