Absolutely.
It turns into a word game almost in that there are words you try to avoid when talking to them.
Creation
Young Earth
Intelligent Design
ID
etc
etc

Ah I do love those good old games.. <sigh  >

Sincerely
Brother Jerry

Oh how Satan will scream when confronted with truth.

My comments earlier about there not being proof.  Let me ratify proofs of proof.  In the spiritual battles we fight you can easily tell how true something is based upon the type and amount of resistance you get.  Look at the broad example of evolution vs creation.  If Satan backed out of that fight then over time everyone would pretty much believe in a created universe.  And it would be much easier to believe in Jesus than anything.  But with evolution Satan has, in the minds of men, pitted God against His first "enemy", mans self.  Man putting himself above that of God.  Man placing trust in himself and not that of God.  Touche there Satan.  Shame it will not hold up to the test of time and that when Jesus comes again He will be able to extend his hand making an 'L' shape and call out "Loser!!!"
**now that would be funny and I guess it would be ROCL (Rolling on Clouds Laughing)**

Sincerely
Brother Jerry

PR

Absolutely correct.  I posted in Apologetics as an informational posting.  A tactic I have found useful in discussions is to not come of as positing that Creation is fact (even though I know it is), but to show the weakness in the arguement of Evolution.  Often I am discussing with my friend about the teaching of evolution in our schools.  And how in our education system evolution is taught as a fact and not a very shaky hypothesis. 

As my friend had even pointed out that I could not prove creation.  My reply being that is not my objective with this but to show the shaky grounds upon which his original claim of proof of evolution were fossil record and DNA.  And my research shows that first DNA evidence is founded and compared to the fossil record.  Well if the fossil record is shown to be shaky and inaccurate then the DNA evidence is as well.  This did not even get into the geological aspect of things nor did I bring out any evidence in support of creation. 

And believe me there is more in support of the Biblical record of the account of history of the world and man than there is for an evolutionary path.  The problem comes in that for something to be scientific it must be testible and reprovable.  And even by that basis their own hypothesis of evolution falls flat because until we are before the Maker we will never "know" the origin.  I know because God has revealed it to me through the Bible.  But I do not know because I was not there.  So until I am in heaven and sitting down talking to Jesus and Adam I only have faith that Bible is the Truth.  A truth that is supported by physical as well as logical evidence, and more and more evidence comes in each day.

And I post this information as the just in case anyone else struggles with an atheist over the discussion of creation versus evolution.  Take a step back and bring forth the arguement from a more "neutral" aspect and show the flaws of the evolutionary arguement.  Then also take many of the tidbits of information and evidence that are found in the threads which PR listed and bring forth a much more solid and plausible explanation for the creation of the universe and man.

Sincerely
Brother Jerry

**NOTE: In the follow part(s) you will find a reply comments from my friend as well as my responses back to him.**

"dream of evolution"  LOL   I like that quote.... There are a few, I don't want to say "fallacies", in that well written doc that you intentionally glossed over... And a few simple questions that tend to tear holes in it... Maybe not conclusively defeat it, but definitely put it at the disadvantage....

1)  How do you account for the genetic differences between, say caucasian, african, and asian peoples??? There are definite genetic differences there, and if evolution DOESN'T happen, then where did those come from???
-   Actually classify of folks that way is not a reliable guide to genetic make up.  For example when dealing with drugs (medication) it is very unreliable to use ethnic makeup for a guide as to what medications a person should take.  ( Link removed due to asking for donations ).  There are differences in our DNA based on our ethnic backgrounds, just like there are differences in the DNA between a Siamese and  Calico.  Something to note is that the number of DNA differences between races is tiny compared with the range of genetic diversity found within a single racial group.  So there is such dramatic genetic differences even within the Caucasian group between two different people that overshadow the differences between, or make up, two different races. 
-   We know that just between two different people, say you and me there are vast differences in our DNA outcome.  You have darker hair, even slightly darker complexion, size, shape, hair outcome (  ), etc, etc, etc.  All showing differences in our DNA. 


2) Taking your horse example, picture a graph, trending upwards for agruements sake.... Just a steadily climbing line (like the GNP of the US over the past, say 200 years).... Now, let's go in and remove sections of it... leaving just the beginning (1776-1790), the civil war (1860s), post WW2 (45-50) and the past 3 years.... The rest of the data is still undiscovered.... How would you account for those gaps???
-   How would I account for those gaps?  I would leave them unknown.  If I do not have the data then I do not have the data
-   If I were asked to guess then I would state what I though.  But then it would be a guess and not a fact. 
-   So let me ask you this using your example up there.  We have a steady climb in the GNP of the US over the past 200 years.  Can you tell me what the GNP of the native American population was for the previous 200 years?
-   Also as stated by the one author if given a gap of 100K years we cannot accurately show the path of a species.  And if a million we can only classify a genera.  If 10 million what can we do?  When looking at such great lengths of time between one set of bones an another with knowledge that there is so few that have been found or can be found we cannot logically, or accurately state that the one found in older strata is parental lineage of the one found in younger strata.  We can say they may be related but cannot say one begot the other.


Remember, you have to come up with natural, TESTABLE, reasons for the above... god doesn't count in a scientific debate for the simple reason that he can't be tested.... he can't be reproduced (  ;-)  You know what I mean.... ) , he can't be questioned.... THEREFORE, no religiously motivated answers are valid for that very reason.... They are beyond scientific / laboratory testing...
-   I have not involved religion in this conversation at all as a means of proving or disproving anything.  Simply pointing out that what is commonly called fact is far from it.

It is considered fact that the fossil record shows transitions and a complete path from start to current.  That it points greatly towards evolution.  However the fossil record is a small percentage of the number of possible species that have ever existed or even exist today.  There are large gaps in several areas.  The fossils we have are quite often not complete and only made complete by guess work.  And in some cases there are items on the made complete that could not possibly have been known based on the fossils that were found. 

The fossil record is far from complete or even half done.  The biggest problem is that when we do find something we assume that it must fit in there somewhere and that it has to either be a parent or a child of something that already exists.  Thus proving evolution.  When in fact it is much more plausible that what we found is something new and not even on the chart yet.  Since we do not even have 5% of suspected species documented.  Oh but then again when we find something we look at it with a presupposed position that all things came from a common ancestor. 

Notice that is presupposed.  There is nothing for proof that Hyracotherium is a parental ancestor to our current horse.  The only thing that links Hyracotherium as a parental ancestor is the concept of evolution.  There is just as much proof for Hyra to be a cousin or a different species.  And considering that it is accepted that we have only catalogued less than 5% of the species of the world it is more plausible that Hyracotherium is nothing more than an extinct species of family of the horse.

George Washington lived before me.  That does not make him a parental lineage to me.  The same with Alexander the Great,   They are both of the same family of mammals called humans.  But just because one came before the other does not necessitate direct parental lineage.  And the fact that we have not found evidence is not a valid argument for claiming that evolution is truth.

My attempt here is not to disprove evolution.  Nor to prove a religious aspect of things.  Simply to show that the evolution is not a proven fact no matter how much anyone wants to say it is.  You cannot logically nor scientifically state that something is true when there is no proof of it. 
If I told you that in my hands I have 97 items and I have given you a dime, a silver dollar, and a penny.  Would you say that the penny came first and it begot the dime, which then begot the silver dollar and that everything else I have in my hand must fit somewhere in between those?  I doubt it.

What do you know?  All three of what you have are in the classification of money, by the order of American money, with the family of coins, and then 3 different species.  What I have in my hand could be coins from different countries, bills, laundry list, or something else entirely.  So we have no idea of what else we find out there.

I understand that we take a natural approach and apply an idea that best fits and run with that until it is proven incorrect.  However before we do that we have to have a certain margin of truth to begin with before we can get going.  Is the fragmented hypothesis of evolution worthy to stand on?  No.  And it is far from complete enough to call fact.  Again if you are going to state that it is true then onus of proof goes to you.  The onus falls with the claimant. 

Now after looking at the evidence it is the only logical conclusion that there is not enough evidence there to state with any certainty that evolution is a fact. 

END

PART III

Hmmmm.  So if we take a look we have documented less than 5% of the possible species out there.  And the Eocene period we probably have documented about 3% which is holding true the ratio.  And the further we go back the fewer we get.  So again we have 100 people that are witnesses do we consider it truth if we get the story from 3 of them? 

Let us take a look at something…because the horse (or Equus) is considered one of the most well documented evolutionary histories there is today.


Now taking a look at this I notice a couple of things.  Amazing gaps between time frames of discoveries and dating.  There is one gap there that is 15 million years.  Now look back at the first write up that was done earlier. “separated by more than 100 thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose.”  And earlier they said if it was more than 1 million years the best you can get is genera.  If those statements are true then how can you possibly build a link between 45MA and 30MA without it being supposition?  You cannot.
Let alone that all the others appear to have millions of years between them as well.  So once again there is a conflict in ideology here.  Either you can link two items that have millions of years between them and assume that they are truly linked or not and the history of the horse is pure speculation.  And if you allow for linking at a million years then how do you reconcile a transition besides something not seen, but hoped for?  (which by the way is one definition of faith in the Bible   )  You cannot.  You can only see a possible similarity and with presupposition of evolution which has no basis of fact and apply the evidence to fit that presupposition.

Now I am not going to say that I am a scientist by no stretch of the imagination.  I will however say that I am a logical person.  One who likes to think things through and base my conclusions on the evidence before me.  There are many more factors that come into play that are used when dealing with evolution that are not necessarily a part of evolution that we did not discuss.  For example dating methods, geographical studies and things of that nature.  Nor did we get into the origins of life, the planet, or anything else.  Just the process of evolution and what evolutionary theory uses to build its case.

What we have seen that the key evidence used in evolution is the fossil record.  With acknowledge gaps and limitation in the fossil record the theory is built.  The origins of the evolutionary thought come from an observation of 2 creatures with similar characteristics must at some point had common ancestor.  It makes sense to a point.  However in order to attempt to bolster that hypothesis one would take a look at the fossils we have and it can be easy to see a process on the surface.

I mean Hyracotherium does look a little like a modern horse, then we have Mesohippus which is a little bigger and shares some more traits to that of our horse, then Merychippus, Pliohippus, and on up to our Equus.  The physical appearance and similarities is understandable.  Until you get down to looking at the time between each of these.  And the number of fossils we have of each.  Along with the number of fossils we do not have for the vast number of species yet unaccounted for.  And you can begin to see that these could just be different species that have just been discovered at different times.   And like the dino’s the species we do not see today have become extinct.

And I do not argue that slight variations within species can and do happen, thus we get the plethora of different domestic cats and such.  However what we have noticed even with that is that it is like buying a car, you can select cloth or leather seats, CD or Cassette, blue or red, etc.  It is all a matter of the cosmetics, and it is not altering their DNA but changing what options are shown. 

However even mentions above that most paleontologist believe that evolution has happened sometimes gradually.  Which implies they believe it usually happens rapidly.  But we have not witnessed anything to the scope that they are proposing has happened with the fossil record.  And there are many times that with just a few fragments they create an entire creature.  I have seen some in that had fragments of skull, a couple of vertebrae, and fragment of some other bone and low and behold there is a completed model of the creature built.  Which is another point that is interesting is that it is very hard to find the fragments found out there, what you find more often is the complete skeleton created from the fragments. 

Either way with everything relying upon the fossil record.  And that being a sketchy piece of evidence in and of itself then it is nothing but pure belief and speculation when it comes to the origins of man and the dream of evolution.

END PART III

PART II


A fossil record with admitted gaps.  A strict unobserved change pattern in that we believe we have observed changes in lineage within 27K years, yet for the past 10K years we have seen nothing.  A cat today was the same as a cat 10K years ago.  And admitted that if the gap is to great then no further development of the species can be accurately detailed and it all becomes speculation.  So what we have in truth at this point is many different creatures that belong to same family and even genus.  And even some we would classify as being in the same species as animals we have alive today.  But nothing that can accurately and directly link one creature as a descendant of another, only a possible cousin.

Even the evidence of what we have in the world today suggests that things have remained the same.  Outside of no difference in the animal kingdom over the time of recorded man.  We have several sea creatures such as sharks that we feel were unchanged for millions of years.  The croc and gator are another example of the same.  Tortoise is another.  We have several examples of creatures alive today that have remained untouched for thousands, tens of thousands, and even possibly millions of years.  But we have not one example of a living creature that we can observe that has sprung from another.  I am not even talking about dogs to cats…but even a once amphibian shifting to pure land based or pure water based.  Nothing in our recorded history or modern history to suggest that.  Granted we have only been seriously looking at this for 150-200 years.  But the number of changes and evolutionary explosions suggested would put the odds of witnessing a transition like this of happening In that sort of time frame.  If the odds of evolution happening are true then the odds of actually witnessing it happening in 100-200 year time span is even better.

But to move on we come to another aspect of things and that being DNA.  DNA has become a huge asset to many aspects of the world today.  From judicial, medical, and even historical.

From actionbioscience.org they state there are two thoughts on where and when man (homo erectus) sprung up.  They are also focusing on mitochondrial DNA.

Multi-regional evolution
   Suggests that modern humans evolved from archaic forms (such as Neanderthal and Homo Erectus) concurrently in different regions of the world.
   Supported by physical evidence, such as the continuation of morphological characteristics between archaic and modern humans
   Now a minority standpoint

Recent African Origin
   Purposes that modern humans evolved once in Africa between 100-200 thousand years ago
   Modern human subsequently colonized the rest of the world without genetic mixing with archaic forms
   Supported by the majority of genetic evidence

Evidence from DNA studies generally supports a recent African origin but these conclusions have been criticised for a lack of statistical support. One possible reason for this is because these studies have focussed mainly on the polymorphisms in a small section of the mitochondrial genome called the D-loop, which comprises around 7% of the mitochondrial genome. The reason for this section's popularity lies in its particularly high mutation rate, meaning that scientists can analyse this relatively short sequence and still resolve differences between closely related sequences. Unfortunately, it is now becoming increasingly clear that this very high mutation rate is actually obscuring the informative information. Three main problems with data from the D-loop section have been identified: 
•   back mutation - sites that have already undergone substitution are returned to their original state 
•   parallel substitution - mutations occur at the same site in independent lineages
•   rate heterogeneity - there is a large difference in the rate at which some sites undergo mutation when compared to other sites in the same region; data shows evidence of 'hot spots' for mutation 

Already here we are given situations of problems with DNA information.  Let us also note that it is nuclear DNA that provides the information to which the cell gets its function, not the mitochondria.  It is the nuclear DNA which gets passed on from one generation to the next.  Also mitochondria DNA is easily contaminated by outside influences so it would be impossible to use that as a comparative tool.
However the site explains how mitochondrial DNA is used as a timing tool.  It states that we are able to observe the rate of change in mitochondrial DNA in a 7% portion of the DNA strand that mutates regularly, the D Loop.  And there are problems with that analysis as well.  Even mentioned are apparent hot spots for mutation.  You have no real baseline.  Not only do you not know where, how, or when man started, but also if they settled down in a hot spot for a while, were in a cold spot for a while or anything of that nature.  So to use this as a dating method while the calibration tool is inaccurate is futile.  And of course they would get results that would match up with what they want.

And from another site Dr. George Johnson’s Backgrounder ( Link removed ) there is another explanation of using DNA in evolutionary theory.

When an ancestral species gives rise to two or more descendants, those descendants will initially exhibit fairly high overall similarity in their DNA. However, as the descendants evolve independently, they will accumulate more and more differences in their DNA. Consequently, organisms that are more distantly related would be expected to accumulate a greater number of evolutionary differences, whereas two species that are more closely related should share a greater portion of their DNA.

To examine this hypothesis, we need an estimate of evolutionary relationships that has been developed from data other than DNA.  Such an hypothesis of evolutionary relationships is provided by the fossil record, which indicates when particular types of organisms evolved.  In addition, by examining the anatomical structures of fossils and of modern species, we can infer how closely species are related to each other.
Comparison of the DNA of different species provides strong evidence for evolution. Species deduced from the fossil record to be closely related are more similar in their DNA than are species thought to be more distantly related.

So what we see is that the fossil record is used to better elaborate the DNA findings.  Obviously as stated the higher you branch off on the tax tree the further dissimilar the DNA will be.  This is a no brainer.  However what makes DNA supportive of evolution falls upon the fossil record.  And relating difference found there to difference found in DNA.  It is easy to understand that a frog and toad will have very few differences in DNA.  Or a human to a chimp for that matter.  However only when searching for evolution do you put the possibility of common ancestors as the answer.

And the only crutch DNA has for evolution is evolution as applied to fossil record.

Back on fossils and such.  There are estimates that we have found about 1.5 million species thus far.  They estimate there are/have been between 100-500 million species.  So even a low end of that we have documented 1-2% of that.  Could it not be possible that the fossils we have found so far, and find in the future are in the range of the 95+% percent we have not found yet…and that so far we have not found any fossils for creatures that are living today?  Those are actually pretty darn good odds.

Dr. George Johnson’s page states

Nonetheless, the fossils that have been discovered are sufficient to provide detailed information on the course of evolution through time.

END PART II

Now I am far from a high level scientist or anything of that nature.  Instead I am a Bible believing Christian with an ear towards logic and a bit of science in there as well.

Below you will find an email that I had sent over to an atheist friend of mine.  My goal was not to prove creation or anything of that nature.  But to simply to point out the problems that there are within the evolutionary process.  I bring this to you all for your review and maybe some education with information that may not be readily understood or findable by some folks


Evidence

Keep in mind this is coming from other sources and not the actual evidence in my hand and looking at it. 

Fossil Record
Even from Talk origins they discuss the gaps in the fossil record.

"Stratigraphic Gaps
Meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous.  There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found.  For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stages ... have produced only a few mangled tetrapods.  Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50-100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by ten -- so the vertebrate record at family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level.  (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!)  ...  To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest dwellers ar worst."

Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document.  To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you needs exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant rapid sedimentation.  This is rare for terrestrail animals.  Even the famous Clark's Fork site only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27K years.  Lukily, this is enough to record most episodes of evolutionary bursts.  In general, in order to document transitions between species, your specimens seperated by only tens of thousands of years.  If you only have one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species.  If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved. 

Note that fossils seperated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose.

Discovery of the fossils

The second reason for gaps is that most fossils undoubtedly have not been found.

Documenting the species-to-species transition is particularly grueling, as it requires collection and analysis of hundreds of specimens.  Almost nobody did this sort of work before the mid-1970's and even now only a small subset of researchers do it.  For example, PHillip Gingerich was one of the first scientists to study species-species transitions, and it took him 10 years to produce the first detailed studies of just 2 lineages.

Actually, no paleontologist that I know of doubts that evolution has occurred, and most agree that at least sometimes it occurs gradually.

There are some other things that they do like list the vertebrate fossil record from the first jawless fish on up.  But first let me take a moment or two to discuss what was said above.

They admit that there are time gaps within the fossil record.  As in different strata around the world in which not one fossil has been found of any animal remains.  Now this in itself does not mean much.  However to piece together a creature from before this gap to one after this gap is pure speculation.  It can be nothing else without anything between the two to link them.  Unless they are the same creature that is. 

They also state that approximately 75% of the total possible family levels have been discovered.  And only about 3% of the species for one certain time frame, specifically mentioned the Eocene, which is a mere 55-38 MA.  So going even further back one would assume that the number would get even less and less.  So as an example there are 100 credible eye witnesses to an event.  You interview 3 of them.  Is that all that you would use to claim it was fact?  No, surely not.  So why base the concept of life as we know it now on such flimsy evidence so far?

Now the next section above talks about that in order for us to make the transitions we truly need a fossil filled strata map going from one point to another.  In other words we need to see the true path with lots of transitional stages.  It says this is rare.  And even Clark’s Fork has only one fossil.  Note that is just a group of bone pieces all within a very short distance apart so as to appear to be from one creature.  A fossil is not classified as a complete skeletal remain.  So at Clark’s there was one fossil of one lineage.   And a lineage being basically a type of animal.  For example feline or canine, or even as broad as mammal, reptile.  So the term lineage in this context could mean just about everything.  And there is just one fossil, for every lineage, about every 27,000 years. 

Now supposedly this Clark’s Fork has a couple of species in which we see some great transitional remains.  Or at least a ton of fossils transitioning one period to the next.  It must take some digging to find all that has been found there in detail, but Clark’s Fork is mentioned on many different sites as attributing to the idea of this and that.  But even mentioned above between one relative in a lineage and the next is supposedly 27,000 years.  And it is to show a transition of some sort.

Now man has records dating back what 10,000 years or close to it.  At worst say 1/3rd of the time that is mentioned as between fossil finds in the Fork.  And there is no recognizable change in man, or animals we have records of dating back as far as we can, for example, horses, cats, dogs, etc.  If there is transitions found in just 27K years that are noticeable then has evolution stopped because we have not witnessed it since as far as anything noticeable?

Also note along there that it specifically states that if the gap between things is 100K years or more then you cannot show anything about how the species arose.  So they state that you have to have something less than 100K years in order to attempt to build the links.  Now also note that these changes would have to be something quite noticeable in order to actually classify it as a different species or let alone a new genus or family.  But again man what we see as his surroundings has remained unchanged in 10K years which is 1/10th of the time for a gap.  I guess in another 90K years we are due to grow gills or something similar.

And read that last comment in which they state that it is common to think that evolution happens rapidly and not a gradual change.  So these mutations in genetic order happen quickly and in spurts instead of a gradual change in things.  Say maybe 10-20 mutations all at once that are profitable or useful to the creature and not fatal and damaging to the species as we have witnessed that most all mutations generally are.

So what we have with the fossil record is sketchy.  I find it interesting that it is very difficult to find what was actually found at many sites.  I did see the Dallasaurus which is hailed as a link and is based solely on a few vertebrae and a near complete skill.  This is not the entire creature, nor did it have any limbs or anything of that nature by what one could read and reports of what was in the find.  But from those a complete body was built and it is the missing link between two species.

Talk about creating what you want to create from little!  It was in the time frame Strata wise that they wanted.  It appears to have the long lizard or eel shape with a pointing skull and long body…thus it must be the link between X and Y.  And I could find tons of pictures of the artist rendition of what they think Dallasaurus would look like, but nothing as far as what the actual bone parts were.  Another assumption if you ask me.

END PART I

I will have to say it is not just athiests that do this.  It is man that does this sort of thing.  It is in our sinful and self willed nature that if there is something we do not agree with then we tend to find fault first instead of merit.  People that say they like change are typically liars.  No one "likes" change.  They only think they like change and that limited only to change that is in their perceptions a positive thing. 

Someone who states they like change is like someone who claims to be an anarchist and loves chaos and makes a huge elaborate plan to create chaos....

Sincerely
Brother Jerry

LP

Amen and wonderfully done.  I think that is one of the more well written pieces I have seen on the discerning of messages in movies, books, and TV. 

And one worth remembering.  One that I agree iwth and have used before.  I read the first Harry Potter book for example.  And although I thought the author was very good and it was written well I did not like the primary focus being on magic or the potrayal of magic.

And like the fairy god parents in the show.  They are not he primary focus of the show.  Timmy is, and although he uses his god parents in selfish manners, he usually gets a lesson in humility by the end.

Sincerely
Brother Jerry

I have actually been impressed that USA NEtworks has actually brought in some good clean entertainment.  Like Monk which my family loves.  Even the new Psych is pretty good and clean.  And Dead Zone as well can be creepy but it is still a clean show.

Now F/X pushes nothing but filth.  I think they have some good shows and such.  I would love to watch the Shield but I know the language and content is horrendous.  We started to watch one episode one night and made it through about 5 minutes.  And when the one cop urinated on a guy we decided it was definitely not for us to watch.

I used to watch Spike TV all the time but they have gotten very trashy as well so we avoid that one too. 

Otherwise we do watch the CSI series (And all branches), House, Monk, Psych, Dead Zone, Survivor.  That is about all that we watch.

I will try and catch some Mythbusters, Stooges, Abbott and Costello, and others when I can.  But being the man of the house I have gained the position of the leader of the household, and my wife is obedient, my kids respectful.  Just a blessed Christian household, but because I have assumed that role I lost my claim to the TV

Sincerely
Brother Jerry

Although I agree that Atheism has killed more people than Christianity.  I will have to try and watch this.  Some of the ideas are stretches in logical thinking.  And those are the kinds of things that athiests love to pick up on and use as a tool against believing.  When large leaps in logic are done to try and prove a point that is flimsy it becomes easy to mentally pick it appart and use that as denial tools.

I can see the logical process here but there is no proof that if Darwin had not come up with his evolutionary theory that Hitler would not have come up with the concentration camps, thought of the perfect race himself, or anything of that nature.  That is where the logical fallacy comes in.

So I will have to take it with a grain of salt and like I said try and watch it when it comes on because it sounds entertaining. 

Sincerely
Brother Jerry

Yeah we catch that when we can...as long as we are not having a late dinner during it

Wireless USB Mouse - You said yes.  Have your replaced batteries?

Also does this happen if you just restart the computer?

PR was correct in directions for getting to task manager.  But what this also checks is that if the task manager comes right up then we also know that CPU (Central Processing Unit - Intel Pentium 4, AMD Athlon XP, etc, etc) is not being bogged down.  However if you do that and task manager does not come right up then the computer is being slowed down by programs that are running or starting up. 

You could have alot of programs running in the background that are having problems getting started when you boot up.  But if you do not run across this when restarted then this is more than likely not the issue.

If the only time this happens is when you first turn the computer on then the problem would point towards something going on with your mouse itself and not the computer.  I know I have a wireless USB mouse by HP that puts itself in a coma.  I have to press both of the buttons in order to get it to wake up.  It will also drift off to sleep if I do not use it for a few minutes.  Then I have to move it around or click a button to get it to wake up. 

If you have another mouse you can try that and see what happens.  Preferrably a USB mouse.  If it works then the mouse is either putting itself to sleep or going bad.  If it does not work then there is a problem with system initiallizing the USB ports.  Which could be motherboard problem or operating system problem.

Sincerely
Brother Jerry

Which is one reason I am in support of the voucher system as well.  I personally would love to send my children to a good private Christian school  But cannot afford private schooling.  Neither could we afford to homeschool them, plus there is a great deal that children miss out on when homeschooling.  Lots of social interaction that is vitally important for kids at young ages (as well as the teen ages). 

There is also an issue around here though that there are a couple of public schools that are excellent accedemically that have put the private schools to shame.  And fortunately right now my kids are going to those schools.  So we just work extra hard at home ensuring they get the Christian values.

Sincerely
Brother Jerry

I gathered it was on a riding mower that this happened.

Maybe a couple of goats instead? 

Sincerely
Brother Jerry