It depends on what type of creationism you are talking about. You are basically arguing from the view of an evolutionary creationist. I think you just wasted a lot of time. I explain below...Creation had to do with what occurED before the evolutionary process even started. Evolution is currently occurring so they don't have anything to do with each other.
I want arguing about how offspring was genetically different from its parent. But the Norton that magic soup just decides to become life one day. the only flaw with evolution is the beginning. How many experiments have been successful in this primordial soup hypothesis? Surly science has attempted to replicate such an occurrence, wait, saw something on science channel, they have tried and failed to produce like out of fluids.
The primordial soup isn't a theory, it is a hypothesis. Or mythology. So without a foundation how do you build on this theory?
Your issue here isn't evolution really- it is the origin of life theories. Now you severely misrepresent those here too and are placing them on a equal basis as creationism which is crazy too, but it is a whole different debate and not one centered on evolution, just slightly tied to it. One thing you need to realize though is that we don't have to see or replicate something to know it is true. The other thing is that life itself is defined by humans which makes a difference here. Furthermore, the prevalent origin of life theories are more compatible with what else we know - i.e. the Big Bang, etc.