Creationism vs Evolution

The first cells were much more simple, required little and could survive in the most harsh environments. Cellular evolutionary theory postulates that complexity arose from these simple cells engulfing others and developing mutual relationships. For example, the mitochondria possess its own DNA, which suggests that at some point it was able to generate energy and produce for itself.

To start evolution is aimless; a series of random changes that result from a response and adaptation to the environment. It could've been just as probable that might have evolved from birds and been a race of avian people that ruled the skies. It just so happened that at the time the environment called for a higher order of adaptation in primates. Who knows why? We've simply acquired a great deal of evidence that at some point in time primate left the trees , etc. It could've been an issue with food, a decline in the amount of forest at the time. There's really no definitive explanation, but there are a great deal of plausible theories. As for the current apes not evolving, they are. The process takes hundreds of thousands of years, and changes are slow, gradual and unpredictable. That is, the current environment may not even call for them to become humanoid; they could end up retreating to the water and become more fish like, if the polar ice caps should melt.

Only recently has it been observed that apes possess some form of language potential. Some have learned sign language and are able to use enough of it to be effective. Granted, many have argued that the learning is simply behavioural and based on stimulus-response reactions, it still shows learning potential.

As for the Big Bang Theory, you're argument does not include all the information within the theory, which makes it invalid. The law of conservation of mass applies to the universe, and with that in mind the Big Bang Theory states that the matter of the universe began as being densely packed and volatile.

 

It can but at the same time it can very not mean that at all. The very existence of bacteria/single-celled (eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells if specification is your goal) organisms wouldn't have been understood at the time (just as how sickness and mental ailments were deemed curses, demons or other otherworldly explainations). So a metaphor is somewhat understandable, HOWEVER if "earth" was to be interpreted to be the origin of bacteria, why not water? Water (aquatic life) has been shown to have been the earlier location of life starting point than earthen material (life on land). Then again many of the descriptions of the Bible are too vague and liable for misinterpretation as you have mentioned. However this is not a question of personal interpretations of texts, but a question of if one theory of life is more plausible than the others.

(Other, much more earlier myths suggested that the first humans were also formed from earth into infants which then grew into full humans, however this is depending on the myth you look into. That in on itself means that humans formed from earth/soil is an idea first introduced by the Bible and is in fact predated by several other beliefs beforehand...but this is not a new fact.)

However, in addition to your suggestion and pondering of Eve coming from Adam's rib and connecting it to today's studies, AT BEST I can link it to some form of mass scale mitosis/meiosis cell-division.

The percentage is actually much higher depending on which "ape" you are comparing to (chimpanzees have the highest, sharing 98.2% with humans, and they also have one more chromosome pair than humans; I looked it up for you 8D). Also the reason why they "aren't humans" is for the very same fact we don't lump all other different species of "similiar" animal together as one lump population (also the rule of species which is self-explainatory; if it cannot be crossbred with fertile offspring it is not of the same species). You must also take into account that just because we don't thouroughly understand ape "intelligence" does not make them any less "human". A good example would actually be Coco the gorilla (or any other study done on those of the ape family, but Coco was one I saw at school some time ago and can think of off the top of my head) who was taught human sign language and could effectively use it to communicate. It's rather fascinating....(I'd include the additional points about "need for the evolutionary trait" but White_Rook has already covered that quite well.)

That aside I don't quite understand your arguement concerning the cell that dies and spontaneously comes back to life....that defeats the purpose of evolution and life/death concept all together...so I'm not certain how the statement works in your favor (perhaps you can rephrase it?). Also, many of the first cells that were able to exist were autotrophs...hence when they continued to live. The cell in your example would merely die and most likely its string for "survival" would no longer pop up in the natural genetic pool.
And no, nothing said the Universe was perfectly organized, look at atoms and how they function.
Also the concept of the Bing Bang is just as questionable as how God spontaneously existed to create all of existence. Both are thus far considered spontaneous and having a conundrum of "but there was nothing and then there was suddenly something." The Big Bang theory offers a straight-up answer of SPONTANEOUS EXISTENCE whereas the God/Higher-being idea consists of "well something divine made it, and that divine something has ALWAYS existed, NO MORE QUESTIONS, THANKS."