César Chávez

Now you’ve stepped over the line.
JTR is NOT a Democrat!!!

If it wasn’t so much work, Hoss would come around and do that for him
This reminds me of the court musician in Amadeus who presents to Mozart a clunky little ditty and Mozart instantly transforms it into a masterpiece.

Well said. The sooner we stop "going beyond the things written" and stick to our Christian mandates the better. The fact that we have been totally wrong about numerous other dates (every other date?) should give anyone legitimate pause for concern and to be skeptical that not only might the hallowed date of 1914 be wrong (including the fact that certain expectations regarding that date never materialized) but whether Jehovah even blesses that presumptuousness. We have lots of more important things to accomplish than to pin our hopes on the prognostications of well-meaning, but uninspired, imperfect men who sometimes go beyond what they have been authorized to do. Making predictions is not part of our mandate. Proclaiming what Jehovah and Jesus actually tell us in his Word are. Yes, I believe Jehovah is using his organization and the GB is doing an admirable job in organizing his people to accomplish many great things. But since it is (generally) forward-moving, it should not surprise us or cause us to get too excited about discarding things we may have held dear - as in the past - and may need to let go of now. Maybe 1914 is one of those things. Although we each individually may have "core" truths we adopt as proof this is the right organization, I personally don't believe 1914 should be included in those core truths - or any artificial, man-inspired date for that matter. Maybe we need to put 1914 on the "date pile" along with the others promoted as being significant. Even if per some unexpected chance the date turns out to be right, should our relationship and dedication to God be based on a date anyway - or either way? I think too much focus has been place on dates anyway. Stuff will happen when Jehovah says it should happen. We should be more concerned with whether we will be ready for it.

César Chávez:
You are either certifiably insane, or a Democrat Congresswierdo.
...merely my opinion, however.
I believe you would stand in quicksand and deny it, even as you drowned.

You put too much focus on who upvotes a person's posts. It's probably what drives you to constantly create additional accounts so that you can upvote and downvote people. When "Little Joe" made himself available to downvote my sister's experience, along with a couple of posts from others, I was pretty sure that we would soon see @Little Joe come over to this thread and start downvoting several of my posts on chronology. Sure enough, that was just about all Little Joe was good for up to that point, but quite predictable, of course. And by the way, you probably didn't mean Arauna, because she would normally side with the Watchtower on this topic, unless she's been studying it more deeply as of late.

There is an expression in math:
“Divergent series are the work of the devil.”
Maybe the same is true of chronology.

I guess I should respond to this point too, since you added "Some scholars have updated their chronology . . . Why haven't you updated yours?"
First of all I don't care about Wiseman and Grayson or your COJ references. I believe Jesus was right when he said chronology is in the jurisdiction of the Father, and that it does not belong to us to get to know the times and the seasons. Paul said that as for the times and seasons brothers you need nothing to be written to you.
So while I don't have any personal interest in even trying to see how a secular chronology might match the Bible, I am only concerned that we aren't getting overly concerned about certain specious claims that turn out to be untrue, and have already resulted in expectation postponed that makes the heart sick. One of our responsibilities as Christians is to encourage one another and build one another up. If false stories and genealogies are likely to end up disturbing our brothers in the long run, our obligation is to make sure of all things so that we can hold fast to what is fine.
To that end I've read some of Wiseman and Grayson and Delitzsch, etc. I've checked out several of the major books they've produced, especially to read parts on the Neo-Babylonian period. The NYPL allowed me to make hundreds of pages of photocopies of some of these books that are only allowed for reference. And, of course, these days it's easy just to take a smartphone snap every relevant page.
But I don't know why you think these particular adjustments are important. You didn't even say for sure which adjustments you were referring to. May I assume you didn't give details because it has absolutely no effect on the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. Most of the adjustments I know of in Wiseman and Grayson are about the Assyrian period: Assurnasurpal, Shalmaneser, etc. There have also been typos in Babylonian tablets, even by trained scribes of the time. And sometimes the typos might have been in an original that was not corrected when copied. And sometimes the scribes made a note when they were making a correction of a previous typo when copying. None of this surprises me.
But even a dozen corrections of the sort I've read about could never override the evidence of hundreds, even many thousands of tablets that give us the entire picture of the Neo-Babylonian period. Even if there were only 7 lines of independent evidence, you could prove that 3 of them were complete frauds, and it would still not overturn the remaining lines of independent evidence. For a long time, the Watchtower publications hinted that Ptolemy was wrong and therefore they can claim anything they want about how to cherry-pick dates for a chronology and reject others. This turned out to be a fantasy, because no one needs Ptolemy at all to understand the overwhelming evidence for the neo-Babylonian chronology.
For evidence of what I am saying, I'll just ask you to share how these supposed adjustments in Grayson and Wiseman would have any effect on the date for Nebuchadnezzar II's 18th and 19th year. If you are are anything like the predecessor accounts you have emulated, I'm sure you won't oblige.

I don't have any problem understanding it, or even seeing its "intellectual" appeal to those who still believe Jerusalem was destroyed around 607 BCE. It's not even difficult to explain, if you are willing to cut a few corners scripturally. The difficulty is not with the doctrine, which I believe is simply wrong, it's with resolving the contradictions between the 1914 tradition and the scriptures.
Yes, that's why I have often referred to this teaching as a long-standing tradition, a lofty, strongly entrenched thing.
(2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) . . .but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God. . .
2520 was not an Adventist calculation. I never contended that it was "made" by Miller. Miller might have used terminology that made it appear that he came up with it himself, but I dealt with that kind of egotistical presentation earlier. Here's a site that contains a lot of quotes directly from Miller on the subject:
https://the2520.com/william_miller.htm
"I WILL NOW BRING FORWARD SOME PROPHECIES WHICH REMAIN TO BE FULFILLED, OR WHICH HAVE RECENTLY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED"
The editor of the site above takes that as evidence that Miller got there first:
William Miller was the first person in modern times to have discovered the 2520, below are some of his thoughts on the subject
It's true that Miller was fairly early among those who discussed 2520 from some potential 7 times prophecies. Maybe as early as 1818, about 10 years before the 1828 work of Faber that was quoted in the 1830 periodical you already referenced about Faber. (Your other quote was from Chamberlain around 1860, about the time Barbour was readjusting some of Miller's starting points for the 1260, 1290, 1335, etc.)
But if you read Barbour and Russell closely, you will notice that they make the same mistakes that Miller made, and they highlight the points with the same priorities as Miller and those who communicated with Miller. (For example, notice how closely the priorities of this work match Russell's by Miller's associate, Hiram Edson, as found in a series of articles from the Review and Herald, starting in January 3, 1856. The articles are called the Times of the Gentiles, and it matches several points that Russell uses in his 1876 article contributed to The Bible Examiner (published by George Storrs). The Times of the Gentiles by Hiram Edson 
Although it's not true of the more sophisticated (more scholarly) sources, Miller-related sources use Leviticus 26 as a more important source of the 7 times than Daniel 4, as did Miller and Edson. (And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.) This was also true of Barbour and Russell. Russell also admitted that the even better source for calculating 1914 would be "Israel's doubles" by which he meant the "parallel dispensations" that mapped the same number of years to fleshly Israel as to events for "spiritual" Israel. Hiram Edson used the same scriptures (like Isaiah 40:2) to "double" the 1260 to 2520.
Also, it's not true of the more scholarly sources (like Faber) to make a mistake with the zero year inclusion. Adventist sources that had been based on Miller and Barbour had made this mistake. The sitehttps://the2520.com/william_miller.htm includes this admission:
At the time William Miller wrote the above quotes, he did not understand the transition between B. C. and A. D.  Therefore his dates are off by one year at the beginning or the end of the his understanding of the 2520.  This was because of a simple mathematical error; in math, when we go from a negative number to a positive number zero will count as one position.  In chronological year dating, to go from B.C. to A. D. you have to add one to your total because there is no year zero.
Russell admitted in the Watch Tower that he pretty much just accepted Barbour's chronology lock, stock and barrel, or maybe I should say, "hook, line and sinker."
Russell admits that he was influenced by Adventists, and the influence is obvious. That doesn't mean he was an Adventist. But if you look closely at his doctrines, even more than just Barbour's chronology, he shows much more Adventist's influence than he appears to admit.
 

But you did NOT show any others concurring with the 2520 prophecy. "The 2520 prophecy" according to the Watchtower, is the tree dream of Daniel 4, where the non-Jewish, wicked king Nebuchadnezzar represents the Jewish Kingdom at Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar is toppled, but banded and protected to rise again, so that his return to power represents Jesus' rise to power in 1914 as King of Jewish kingdom.
And it was not just the erred timing.
What you quoted and spoke of as "overwhelming proof" was about a man in 1830 who didn't even see these seven times as related to anything in Daniel 4. It had nothing to do with the 7 time periods of Nebuchadnezzar's insanity. He never hinted that this insanity pictured the Messianic Kingdom.*
But here's where you pulled another "Allen Smith." Allen Smith, you might remember, was well known on this forum for finding supposed evidence for something and not realizing that his evidence actually showed just the OPPOSITE of what he wanted to prove.
Here's how you did that here.
What you apparently hadn't realized is that the article you quoted from shows why Mr. Faber was WRONG. Not only wrong, but wrong to start with Nebuchadnezzar. The article shows why the more popular and preferable period of 2,520 years needs to start, NOT WITH NEBUCHADNEZZAR, but with the Assyrian assault on Israel in 728 BC, as already presented by Cuninghame who, by this logic, would have mapped two 1260 year periods as follows:
I. B.C. 728. Commencement of the subjugation of Israel and Judah by the Assyrians snd Babylonians.
II. A. D. 533. Decree of Justinian, establishing the Papal Supremacy, and the worship of the Virgin Mary.
III. A.D. 1792. Commencement of the Judgments on the Papacy, in the French Revolution.
Periods II to III above, were within 6 or 7 years of the same endpoints that Miller, Barbour and Russell accepted for the 1260-year period. Russell ran it from AD 539 to AD 1799. (sometimes AD 538 to 1798).
So what you called indisputable was disputed by your own reference. As you might recall, this is why I suspected that Allen Smith would rarely tell where he got his references from, because it so often led to someone reading that reference and seeing how it often demolished his supposed "indisputable" and "overwhelming" evidence. And Allen's common "defense" was to claim that persons were only using "word play" to prove him wrong.

I propose that they change from 1914 on April 1, primarily to get Allen’s reaction. The next day they change it back. April Fool.
Who cares, if the word is not translated properly? It seems to me that you have fallen a long ways. A) you don’t trust JW’s, but B) you don’t trust anyone else, either, since Holy Spirit hasn’t gotten around to inspiring a true translation that can be trusted.
You have a very strange view of Holy Spirit and what it is supposed to do. It sometimes seems to me that the day you stopped believing in Santa you started to believe in Holy Spirit as a one-on-one substitute.
Throw another window in his Kingdom Hall, and the spiritual wuss will be stumbled and out by the evening.

Not that the majority are always right anyway, but I think that hardly any Bible scholars understand the "2520 concept" to be scriptural. I just looked up 10 online commentaries on Daniel 4 and NONE of them considered the number 2520. The number 2520 is not found in the Bible. Extrapolating 2520 days from 7 times is already a stretch, and turning those days to solar years is another stretch. Even this word iddan (time) that Daniel uses, just means a time period, which CAN be a year, but not always specifically a year. In fact, how long is this period in Dan 7:12? (below)
These verses represent the majority of the uses of iddan in Daniel outside Daniel 4, itself:
(Daniel 2:8, 9) . . .The king replied: “I am well-aware that you are trying to gain time [the time, iddan], for you realize what my final word is. 9 If you do not make the dream known to me, there is only one penalty for all of you. But you have agreed to tell me something false and deceitful until the situation [the time, iddan] changes. So tell me the dream, and I will know that you can explain its interpretation.”
(Daniel 2:20, 21) . . .“Let the name of God be praised for all eternity, For wisdom and mightiness are his alone. 21 He changes times [the times, iddan] and seasons, Removes kings and sets up kings,. . .
(Daniel 3:15) Now when [at the time, iddan] you hear the sound of the horn, the pipe, the zither, the triangular harp, the stringed instrument, the bagpipe, and all the other musical instruments, if you are ready to fall down and worship the image that I have made, fine.. . .
(Daniel 7:12) But as for the rest of the beasts, their rulerships were taken away, and their lives were prolonged for a time [time, iddan] and a season.
At least I can inconsequentially agree with you there.
Your quote from "The Christian Guardian" (February 1830) reports on Mr. Faber's interpretation of prophecy, and reminds me of what we spoke of earlier on these topics: that people will always look for a time period long enough to reach their own day. In the 1200's, people could easily reach their own day with a 1260 year period. In the 1400's one could always take a 1335 year period and tack it on to some event in Jesus' life. But when the 1800's rolled around, there were no 1800 year periods. They could start looking for events 2300 years earlier and even more, but that ended up nowhere. During these years Miller, among others, was forced to use a 2520 year period, never found in the Bible. So in the 1830's Miller had to use conjecture to attach a 2520 year period to attach to some event about Babylon from the book of Daniel.
The full context of your quote is here. https://books.google.com/books?id=Rg8EAAAAQAAJ  (p.41,42)  As you partly indicate, the person behind your 1830 quote above did something quite similar, doubling the 1260 year periods, for no other reason other than he thought that 3.5 seemed like it needed to be doubled since it was half of 7. Then he attaches that 2520 to a Daniel reference, in this case Nebuchadnezzar, the head of gold -- and he used his birth year, assumed to be about 657 BC. This was a means of reaching his own modern times, and therefore was able to falsely predict 1864 as the end of the gentile times.
But I don't know how impressed we should be that a person was able to make another false prediction for his own generation. Here's what the Watchtower said about such false alarms:
*** w53 11/1 p. 647 Christ’s Second Presence No False Alarm ***
Following Augustine’s time . . .  all were misinterpreted as “signs” foretelling the imminent return of Christ. Joachin of Floris determined that the 1,260 days mentioned in Revelation 12:6 could turn out to be the year A.D. 1260 when Christ would return. Militz of Kromeriz, a forerunner of John Huss, looked for the coming of Christ between the years 1365 and 1367. Wycliffe pointed to the power of the papacy and emphasized that the time of the return was at hand. John Napier predicted the coming end of evil and the return of Christ between the years 1688 and 1700. William Whiston first selected 1715, then 1734, and later 1866 as the date for the inauguration of the millennium.
In the early part of the nineteenth century Christoph Hoffman hurried from Germany to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple in preparation for Christ’s early return. William Miller predicted that Christ would make his appearance during the year 1843, but later postponed the day to October 22, 1844. When these speculations did not materialize, religious sects became a laughingstock, great divisions took place among them, the doctrine was scoffed at, the people who taught it were jeered, and as a whole the idea was pooh-poohed in religious and nonreligious circles alike. All, without exception, were false alarms.
It looks like God didn't make it known, except to make it known that the attempt is a waste of time, false stories leading to nothing. These mistakes are just examples of humans "flailing" because men's egos make them forget what Jesus said about the times and seasons being only in the Father's jurisdiction. Not even angels could figure out the times and seasons, but this didn't stop men from treading there.
If God had provided the evidence, surely these men including Russell and Barbour and Miller and Faber and Rutherford would have been able to predict something correct with that evidence. 100 percent of Russell's predictions for 1914 turned out to be false.
The evidence you provided here was that the first period of 1260 years ended in AD 604., in the time of Pope Gregory the Great, and the spread of Buddhism, etc., in the medieval period. The second period of 1260 was also to have started around this time. The Watchtower Society rejects both of these 1260's, too. For the WTS the 1260 periods from Daniel and Revelation are not even years, they are literal days starting just about 3 days after Christmas in 1914 and reaching up to the Summer Solstice of 1918.
Good! Something else I can agree with completely.
Very false! Complete nonsense. It is very rare that anyone calculates the Gentile Times with a period of 2520. After all, Revelation indicates that it should be calculated with a period of 42 months, or 1260 days. And nowhere does it say that this period is about 1260 years.
(Luke 21:24) . . .into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
(Revelation 11:2) . . .to the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months.
Nowhere do these two references to the Gentile Times refer to a second period of 1260 days, just one. Also, we can see from Jesus said in Luke 21, that these Gentile Times had NOT yet started, so it couldn't have reached back to Nebuchadnezzar anyway.

@JW Insider Thank you once again.  I'm laughing again but not at you, just at situations, such as, " Other translations get the sense of the Greek a little better like this: "   is not coming with signs to be observed; (Luke 17:20). Isn't that just so much easier to understand...  Why didn't the NWT just say that ? 
OK, moving on, Matt 24 v 11 & 12 Many false prophets will arise and mislead many and because of the increasing of lawlessness, the love of the greater number will grow cold.  
Now, an important question which I will couple up to what we've already spoken about. 
Dos this scripture relate to inside the JW Org ? (I think the translation used to say 'cool off' but now says 'grow cold').  
My thinking here is that if the GB / JW Org are not getting things quite right, and if we need to keep on the watch about ourselves, then do we truly need to be a JW ?  Is there any scripture that relates to saying, we must be one of Jehovah's Witnesses to gain either spiritual blessings and/or salvation ? 
I'll repeat one comment from you from above.
"Most Witnesses have found no outlet to safely discuss these conflicts and contradictions between the Bible statements and the Watchtower doctrines. "
Quote below from JW Org website.  Matt 24 v 10 
Then, too, many will be stumbled ...... 
Matthew 24:10
will be stumbled: In the Christian Greek Scriptures, the Greek word skan·da·liʹzo refers to stumbling in a figurative sense, which may include falling into sin or causing someone to fall into sin. As the term is used in the Bible, the sin may involve breaking one of God’s laws on morals or losing faith or accepting false teachings. In this context, the term could also be rendered “will be led into sin; will fall away from the faith.” The Greek word can also be used in the sense of “to take offense.”—See study notes on Mt 13:57; 18:7.
If GB / W/t / JW Org are giving false teachings as 'food at the proper time', then would they be the 'cause for stumbling' ?  Repeating that :-
"Most Witnesses have found no outlet to safely discuss these conflicts and contradictions between the Bible statements and the Watchtower doctrines. "  That seems to show that there are conflicts and contradictions between the Bible statements and the Watchtower doctrines
My point relates to your comment where you say  "We don't watch for signs. We watch out for ourselves, we watch out for false teachings, ... " 

Incompetence is indistinguishable from deliberate subversion.

@JW Insider  Sorry but I'm laughing. You lost me half way through. But i do wonder how much time was spent looking at dates / years. And I'm still lost as to whether the year 1914 should have any serious meaning to a true Christian. 
I'm also confused as to what one should be 'on the watch for' if all the 'happenings' around the earth mean nothing anyway. 
Quote "This is one of the problems with 1914 playing a prominent role in prophecy. The very role it most likely plays, in my opinion, is that it became a primary instance of proving Jesus right. He said not to be fooled by wars into thinking that the parousia was imminent. I believe that this prophecy has come true, not just in 1914, but in many wars over the past hundreds of years. People hear about wars, earthquakes, pestilence, famine, persecution, imprisonments, etc., and are easily misled into thinking they are seeing a sign of the parousia. "
So what does one look for when keeping 'on the watch' ? 
One important point i did take from your comment was :-
 "Most Witnesses have found no outlet to safely discuss these conflicts and contradictions between the Bible statements and the Watchtower doctrines. "
This is of very serious concern. 

Or it could just mean that you follow like sheep, but following a false shepherd. 

@JW Insider thank you again. But i will probably need to re-read that six times to understands it all. 
It would seem to me right now that the Watchtower writers were making it more difficult in the past for anyone to understand the Truth of God's word. Other religions were always criticized for their teachings being wrong, but it would seem here that the Soc / Org / W/t  should have known better. 
It looks to me as if, from the very beginning of the Bible Students right through to the JW Org now, they have had to pretend that things were 'happening' right then and there.  It's as if they have to maintain some excitement by hyping up everything.  
I'm still very confused by many spiritual things, but it does not seem that the GB /W/t / JW Org, can be of much help to me if they cannot even get it right themselves. I am sincere in my hope that God will soon inspire the true Anointed to lead God's people, whomever they may be, in the right direction. And I am even more sure in my heart now that Judgement time will be quite a long way off yet. There does not seem to be one humble organisation that is getting it right with scripture or service to God. The preaching work would of course only be good if what was preached was faithful and true.  
 

You are right. I was equating the importance not so much in the number of times it is mentioned, but that it is mentioned at all!
I just tried to create a graph, but alas, since I've never done one either in word or excel, I failed miserably. I got the horizontal axis right, but I just can't find how to create the vertical axis and how to change the data (numbers) for the vertical axis so I completely messed up. In any case, the chart would show that since 1950 Watchtowers, the mention of 1914 has a sharp downward trend. During 1950 to 1959, it was mentioned 891 times, and during 2000-2009 it was mentioned 216 times. I don't have data for the years 2010 to 2019. So comparatively there is a big difference, but it still seems like too many mentions, if we are thinking along the lines of it slowly being phased out. In my opinion anyway....
 

Unnecessary on his account. He is so bombastic that I can hear him in my sleep.

What?!!! Never do that again!!

So am I.
So are you.
So is JTR
So is everyone here.
The point is that “whistleblower” is in the eye of the beholder. No villain ever says: “I am the villain.” Always they are victims, unappreciated reformers, or “whistleblowers.”
Jude says they, “indulge in dreams, defile flesh, despise discipline, speak abusively of glorious ones.” (vs 8 ) Do you think that they would have described themselves that way? Or would they not attribute their departure to finally having opened their eyes?
Jude says they were “rocks hidden below water at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves without fear; waterless clouds carried here and there by the wind; fruitless trees in late autumn, having died twice and having been uprooted; wild waves of the sea that cast up the foam of their own shame; stars with no set course, for which the blackest darkness stands reserved forever.” (12-13) 
Do you think they would have described themselves that way? Or would they not have complained about “ad hominem” attacks and how their real, legitimate concerns were being ignored—just like malcontents do here?
Yes, I know that Jude was the real whistleblower. I was playing devil’s advocate.
And I hope that I do not get another disappointed chastisement from Witness as to how sad she finds it that I am now advocating for the devil.
 
They are. I understated their cuteness. ‘Cute,’ too, is in the eye of the beholder, and in many respects, you are blind as a bat.

Bingo!   Most of the evolution dates of rocks assume perfect conditions like in a lab.... in other words - no contamination. They also assume that rocks were formed without any of the daughter isotopes around- which affects the age dating of the rock.   They also assume "goldilocks conditions" on earth - which is impossible.
 
Mathematically it is impossible.  Billions upon billions of "beneficial" changes by chance just to build the orderly "  factories" within the cell. Separate DNA in the mitochondria..... and a membrane to hold it all in place so the contents does not dissipate.  Without a membrane the first cell would not exists because the chemical nano particles  will dissipate in the watery soup.
Those massive birds (dinosaurs) could fly in the atmosphere we had here on earth before the flood.  Major changes were brought about by the flood - much greater than we can imagine.    But evolutionists do not except the event - so it is not in their "goldilocks" calculations.  Lab conditions are perfect but nature is not.  
Creationists point to events such as an extreme flooding event in America in 18th century where the sediment built up suddenly during the flood and it looks similar to that if the Grand Canyon.  Now that is evidence in real time!  But this evidence is not good enough for evolutionists..... they prefer  experiments in perfect lab conditions and fake dates.
Creationists also point to the incorrect dating of major recent events such as Vesuvius volcanic eruption.    Dates come back from labs which are billions of years - yet we know the date of these catastofic events as recent.   There are many many examples of this around.  It is the method of calculation and "faulty"  assumptions before the dates are calculated.  
So yes, if one listens to evolutionists - their postulations is a reality and they are "scientific".  But bring them contrary recent evidence from real time - modern times -  and you are a "moronic" creationist.  Does that sound like they are running after ego or the truth? 
 

It is propaganda...... from scholars who have a vested interest to keep things going....... just like the high priests in Jesus' time...... they like the power and the influence this system gives them.
All these little side issues keep you focussed on them so you do not ask the BIG questions..  Where did all the energy for this vast universe come from in the first place.  What was there before the singularity?  They keep you busy with hypothesis of 23 universes.... lol.... where they play with mathematics so they can create the illusion of better " chances" to hit the jackpot of life and it  may look a bit better in their favour.
I am glad I have a real smart brother who can do math and a researcher in carbon chemistry..... so I have access to knowledge that gives real answers.  True evolutionists acknowledge that they do not have the answers.....
Why? Because there is too many things one needs to get explanations for which  accidental order and intricacy cannot  explain.  And the records are too scanty to support it..... even if you try your hardest you know you are lying to yourself.  Honest evolutionists acknowledge there is not enough evidence - usually after they have retired......
Science is the new God. Most people do not realize that some science disciplines do really search for the truth  because replication of the tests and solid evidence is required.  BUT evolution is a religion masquerading as a science...... similar to the new science of feminism and transgenderism- where a man can now have a monthly period.   This is where evolution and transgenderism is leading the world to....... NOT TRUE SCIENCE because it is all hypothesis with little proof......  
Not true - 10 million ..... the newest info.
If there were plenty..... I would be convinced by now.  
Explain the 13 proteins found in the bones..... which points to a younger earth..... This has not been explained in an acceptable way

I heard some penguins travel 5000 miles (8,046.72 km) to Brazil. I have read Fire ants also make rafts to travel the oceans and survive floods with their bodies.

Animals are interesting creatures with intelligent migration programming.

It is interesting how the penguin stopped flying at a certain point. Evolution does indicate penguins flew at one point. I believe the snake also had hind legs to walk upright according to evolution.

 Was it in prehistoric times, or the Garden of Eden? Was it after the animals scattered that the penguins stopped flying? The snake was cursed by God in the garden, so creation can attest to that.

There are so many wonders, the biggest one, how god got all the animals to migrate a long distance to the Ark. I wonder if he then encouraged the animals to migrate, or were some migrations helped by humans?

If Jesus gave that authority to his followers, what would be the difference? I’m no referring to personal authority, but of that given by God. Do you believe the Holy Spirit doesn’t have any authority?

Are we not slaves to God and Christ? Isn't showing the same zeal that Christ displayed be done in today's Christianity? The principles of faith need to live with us.
 

It is true that no one has the right to reinvent scripture or interpret scripture to cause others to follow them 1Timothy 4:1 instead of the word of God, but I can see where we have the power as Christians by the authority of Christ who sent us to continue his work. Romans 10:13-15

I don’t see where a Christian can go wrong when they follow the word of God Psalm 18:30 and apply that word of God with the same strength Jesus applied it. Matthew 5:48

Can you provide how someone has proven the ancient scrolls with a crystal clear interpretation?