When my second to the last child was born, she was blessed with a great curiosity about everything.
Most children tend to be curious and it's a great way to learn. Some are more curious than others and I accept that the one to which you refer was more curious than most. In the interest if accuracy; that she was "blessed" with a great curiosity is your assumption and one without evidentiary support.
She needed answers at a very young age and I knew that if I did not give her a chance to see both Creation and Evolution, I would have lost her to a world of strong, secular beliefs, and she may end up not being given an opportunity on a teaching bases; to learn about a Creation by God.
At this point it is clear that while you have taken admirable steps to assure that she was introduced to both concepts, your bias for creationism is obvious. And since most children tend to believe what their parents believe, it would be unusual for her to accept evolution over creationism, despite the extreme advantage evolution has in regard to demonstrability and dozens of lines of evidence.
I needed to show her side by side what each held for a foundation for life.
Creationism does address the origin of life. Evolution does not.
I have worked at our local school for many years. I knew what she would be taught in school, so we took her to museums. We have both Evolution and Creation books on our book shelves in our home. We knew both Creation and Evolution would have their explanations based on their assumptions (prior to having knowledge which takes some faith.)
Creationism is not supported by scientific evidence, therefore it requires faith to believe. Evolution is fully supported by evidence and is not in contradiction to any viable evidence, therefore, faith cannot be applied.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, which includes no God
It may shock you to know that about half of Christians accept evolution and still believe in God. It may further surprise you to know that Charles Darwin was a Christian who accepted the idea that God created life. But he did not discount the evidence which lead him to drafting the original theory of evolution.
and Creationists base beliefs on the past/ present that they presuppose that include God.
Creationists base their beliefs upon the literal claims of the Bible, despite the fact that the evidence speaks strongly against such biblical claims.
As I shared in another post, I had lived a life without God. I did not want to pass that on to my children. With Creation comes God, out of Creation may come Jesus Christ.
Please note that there is no evidence of any creation ever within the known universe or within the existence of the universe. All that exists shows every sign of having existed, in one form or another, forever. The assumption of creation necessitates an assumption of nothingness prior to that creation. This assumed nothingness is also without evidence. Both of these unevidenced assumptions seem to serve no purpose other than to create a supposed, (yet unevidenced), act for God to perform.
We found as a family it took a great amount of belief or faith to hold onto what was being shared in the museums and taught in our Evolution books.
Then I think it fully fair to conclude that you did not understand what was being taught in those books because evolution is based on evidence and in full compliance with all known pertinent evidence. As such, faith is not only unnecessary, but inapplicable.
It took faith to believe in God, but if measured, it simply took a step of faith and trust by us and by our children. God does the rest.
Faith is simply blind belief. It takes only a strong desire to believe and there is no evidence that strong desires to believe anything come from other than the believer.
The idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent designer I cannot accept.
Most people who don't understand such a concept have a great amount of difficulty accepting it. And when their difficulty is compounded by beliefs which they hold to be contrary to such a concept, the odds that they will make an honest effort to fully understand the concept they prefer not to believe are quite limited.
Would you believe that two completely natural forces, working in unison on the same matter can sort them far faster than you can and with no intelligence involved?
I want to show you an image:
How many simple rules/forces, working together would it take to create such an image?
A. One
B. Twelve
C. Four
D. Thirty-two
The ‘General Theory of Evolution’ is ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
You're speaking here of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution does not address the origin of life. It addresses only the diversity of species. This is a common mistake made by many who proclaim that they understand evolution but have never really taken the time or interest to even become familiar with what the theory does and does not address. This being the case it seems obvious that you could not have given your daughter an unbiased introduction to evolution since it is apparent that you think it addresses the origin of life when it doesn't. And if she read the same books you did with the same degree of comprehension, she still hasn't been introduced to the concept of evolution.
It is my belief that only a gift as marvelous as new life, earth, and space - no matter what is understood by men, that it has to be intricately controlled and created by a Supreme Creator.
I accept that this is your belief. However, it is a belief in stark contrast to the evidence and is usually perpetuated by a devout disinterest in learning how life could have spawned without intelligence at the controls.
In fact, the entire concept that life is too complex to have come about without an intelligence directing the process is contradictive. What you're trying to tell us is that life is too complex to have happened without intelligent direction, but you believe that this intelligence which served to direct the process came into being -- or simply exists -- without itself, being intelligently designed. So you've raised the level of complexity which "just exists", in order to explain the lesser complexity which is too complex to "just exist" or form without intelligent direction.
In short you're saying;
1. God, the highest level of perceptual complexity, just exists and was not intelligently created.
2. Life is markedly less complex than God but due to its complexity, could only be created by intelligence.
I cannot argue to an Evolutionist - Creation. But, I know Creation, because I know the Creator.
You "believe" in creation because you "believe" in a Creator. You don't know these things no matter how much you might protest to the contrary. Being completely honest with others starts with being completely honest with yourself.
Deut. 4:29 says: ... if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find Him if you look for Him with all your heart and with all your soul.
I sought for 33-years and for all of that time, thought I had found the Lord. What it turned out I had found was a method of confirmation bias which allowed me to mold any evidence presented into compliance with the belief I desired to hold. Not until reality became unbelievably cruel and there was no god to assist, did I raise the need for truth above the need to believe in a god and an afterlife. That was when I start to find that truth.
Have you seen this DVD?
Peace to you, Mickey
Have you seen this one?
Oh! And the answer to my question above regarding how many rules/forces it takes to create such an image when all are working together is;
Four. Just four and each one is no more complex than a point on a circle and produces either a single line or a single dot. The perception of complexity which can be produced by only a very few simple rules/forces, interacting upon a single element is astounding.
The blue brackets and back color denote the individual rules, (forces).
The red arrows indicate the drawing instructions.
Have you ever seen the complex shapes exhibited in columns of desert rocks? If you had never been introduced to the concept of sedimentation, rock density and hardness and the abrasiveness of sand when propelled by the wind, would you really believe those shapes were formed without intelligence?
