Creationism is not to be measured scientifically? But yet it has scientific evidence? That sounds contradictory. May I see this evidence?

As far as I am aware, there is no known evidence for creationism. If anyone can prove me wrong, I encourage it.

There is plenty of evidence for both macro and micro evolution. All you need to do is educate yourself on the subject, for it is clear you have not. If you would like, I can post some links to websites.

Also, you can post some links to websites that you think debunks macro evolution as well.

Your link is defective.

You are equating proof to infallible absolute knowledge.

In any practical and meaningful sense of the word, we have plenty of evidence and proof that evolution is indeed correct.

You devalue the terms of proof and evidence, I recommend you go look up the definitions for them.

There is no known evidence supporting creationism. Evolution has mountains of evidence supporting it.

i wonder what the first cell evolved from,

This is from an old debate I posted in, I didn't see the point retyping it.

If you think about what codes life contains, it all boils down to genetic material, i.e. Nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, it is the latter that is the most interesting, RNA, comes in several forms, and for the purpose of this argument the first most important RNA is cRNA, it is catalytic, in that it can catalyze it's own synthesisand also carry a code. There doesn't need to be life to have reproduction.

Now think about the way, lipids aggregate in an aqueous environment, i.e. they form micelles, and bi-layer lipids form liposomes, again, non living, but freely observable, as above.

In a primordial soup or some other harsher chemical environment, a liposome surrounded a cRNA, then you have a rudimentary cell, this cRNA will have a much better chance of survival than others, as it is kept safer from things that can denature it. So starts the explosive work of natural selection.

Now we can talk about other RNA, such as tRNA and rRNA, both of these still serve functions in every living thing on this planet. Say for example you have high presence of amino acids in our early environment, there is nothing stopping the joining of amino acids to RNA molecules, there would be myriad forms of RNA in this world, what if in a catalytic RNA generation the wrong nucleotides were placed, this happens all the time, with DNA, whose synthesis is much more strict, so it's no stretch of the logic. These amino acid holding RNA and some ribosomal RNA could begin synthesis of short rudimentary but functioning peptides, from here it's quite obvious that those that make the most functional peptides will survive. These will eventually create the multitudinous proteins we see today and probably in the same place that makes their bilayer coats, this is your first cell.

That would be abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution.

Science isn't certain how the first cell came about, all science knows is that it did happen, because here we are today.

As for humans not evolving, your argument doesn't make sense. So because humans focus on thriving, instead of surviving, we are going to stop evolving...? I'm sorry, but that's a non sequitur.