If I get an answer, I'll post it here.

You said "I believe in Creation.  I have a few questions for those of you who don't. If we came from monkeys, where did the monkey come from? If we originated from one-cell creatures that evolved over time, where did they come from? No matter how far back you go and say we evolved over time, there is always that question. Where did that organism come from that started everything?"

This is basically all one question, and it's what we call a question of infinite regression.  One can always ask "well where did THAT come from?"  One can even ask that question about God.  Fortunately that question falls outside the bailiwick of the Theory of Evolution.  The theory of evolution does not speculate on where the first life form came from.  The abundant evidence for evolution makes clear that evolution happened and is still happening.  But none of that precludes a deity.  If you choose to believe that the first life form was the product of the divine, that's fine, evolution makes no assertions either way to challenge or support such a belief.

Which is why it's a little misguided to argue that one must choose between creation or evolution.  There are literally billions of religious people the world over who accept the evidence for evolution and continue to believe in their deity of choice.  There's no necessary conflict between those two beliefs.

Regarding the rest of your post "I have even heard some one say that we evolved from non-living rocks. Unbelievable."

Now you are getting into a different subject, and it's not part of evolution, you are speculating on what in science is referred to as abiogenesis (life from nonliving matter).  The reason why it has that name is that there is no argument (among those familiar with the evidence) that the planet existed before life did.  At one point there was only nonliving matter here, and then there was living matter.  How?

It's an interesting question... how do you get from nonliving matter to living matter?  Abiogenesis isn't a theory, there isn't enough evidence for us to know for sure how the first life forms came into being (and honestly there probably never will be)--there are a number of competing hypotheses, and many of them have points both for and against.  But the belief in divine creation is also an example of abiogenesis... if it was a god, he must have created life out of something.  Surely it is within the power of a supreme being to take some raw chemicals and assemble a living thing.  I doubt you would claim "God couldn't do that".

The most likely conclusion is that the first life form was molecular, a simple chemical compound that could make imperfect copies of itself.  At the lowest levels it becomes impossible to distinguish between biology and chemistry--and it's quite likely the first "life" would be something we would barely recognize as alive.  You may find it unbelievable that we evolved from "rocks", and that is a mind boggling proposition.  However that a simple duplicating chemical compound might have formed in a sea of chemicals bathed in solar radiation and sitrred by tides isn't all that mind boggling at all.  Once you have anything that copies itself with errors, then natural selection kicks in and begins to result in changes to that "organism" over time.

All very interesting, but when it comes to the genesis event, whatever it was, we'll never have an eyewitness or a fossil that will allow us to know the nature of that event.  Fossil molecules, I suspect, would be rather hard to find. :-)

Therefore I don't concern myself with it, and I concern myself with what we DO have evidence for.  The notion of a supernatural being that actively affects the universe and created anything is an interesting notion... a pretty spectacular claim.  But for a person with an evidentiary worldview I can't possibly just accept such a claim without evidence.  Since the evidence is lacking, I'm not going to adopt such a belief (pending further evidence of course)--that's the reasonable assumption to make.  So there we are.

What I do note of the "God Hypothesis" is that historically it has been supplied as an explanation for the unknown for any number of questions and phenomena.  As science has advanced the answer to each of those previously divine phenomena (planetary motion, earthquakes, thunder, lightning, volcanoes, rainbows, etc, etc, etc) the divine has been found to be unnecessary, and the God Hypothesis simply moves to a new unknown, filling the gaps on the shelves of knowledge, to be perennially relocated when the books that explain those gaps are written and shelved.

The unknown is mundane.  There will always be unknowns.  And since the supernatural has been invoked to explain every single unknown in the history of humanity, the fact that it is invoked to explain the origin of life isn't very compelling to me.  The hypothesis doesn't have a very good track record, and the mere fact that something is unknown is not evidence for a supernatural agent.

So while I do not know what the original life form was, or how it got here, I'm inclined to think it was some sort of entirely natural event.  That's the more reasonable assumption based on what we know about the world.  I'm not going to make assumptions based on what we DON'T know... that would be imprudent in my opinion.

That said, I bear no ill will to those who do.  There are many great things religion has brought humanity (including, ironically, science itself).  So if you want to believe in a divine being, an afterlife, redemption--more power to you I say.  Especially if it brings you happiness or comfort in difficult times.  I don't share that belief, but I see no reason either of us should condemn the other.

Obviously I tend to get quite angry with people who ignore evidence and spread disinformation.  That's to be expected from someone who holds an evidentiary worldview.  (And of course, I am as human as the next guy.)  Which is why you could sum up my opinion on the subject at hand like so:

"To believe in the divine is a personal choice, and there is nothing wrong with it.  To ignore the evidence for evolution is to be willfully ignorant."

And that's all I have to say about that.  I hope you found this message to be a useful answer to your questions.  I'm actually not interested in debating theology (I think debating things for which there isn't any evidence is fairly pointless), but if you have any questions about evolution, I'd be happy to try and answer them if I know the answers.