a question.
what age should i start to show religion for my children?

Yer I call BS.

I want to see the average grades of these schools and competency of teacher. I would also argue how bias the teacher is to religion.

When I went through school we learned about all religions and guess what it was a catholic school nad everyone could sell fact from fiction.

Of course not in their pure forms, but early Earth would have had molecules of water, ammonia, hydrogen and methane, and depending on the conditions you put them in (temperature, pressure, metal compounds, salt etc.), these will react to form amino acids, purines, pyrimidines etc.

A lot of experiments have been done to show this although the work is ongoing.

Yeah, early earth, What about before then, the randomness of the elements forming even the earth, the amount of time it would take for the elements to randomly bond to one another to make the large structures which would create gravitational pulls to pull other stuff to it would take an emense amount of time. It is believed that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Now, the earth is believed to be 4.5 billion years old. The earth has been around for 1/3rd of the time the universe has been around approximatly or so believed. Now I know those numbers are probably loosly estimated because really.... how do you really calculate some thing like that to being even remotly accurate.  Over all, elements form to usually what is easiest. And for them to form into everything as it is, it is highly random, and highly improbable. Yes, if you have the conditions to make those amino acids they will be created but at the same time, those conditions will need to be created as well which of course then, it is back to random occurance.  Tings such as the sun, would take an emense amount of time for all those hydrogen and helium molecules to come together. Which of coruse would have been where a lot of the heat for planets to come. So, if that took 9.2 billion years make (as the sun is expect to be 4.6 billion years) then the earth to be 0.1 billion years later (actually, about 0.6) , 2/3rds of the time of the Universe being around, why was there so little done on earth in the 4.5 billion compare to what has happened before and all around it. The randomness factor is enormous. The molecules would have had to been in hyper drive in the first 2/3rds and then slowed down when the sun was formed which again doesn't make sense because then you have more enery being put into these compounds more than they were before so they should be reacting more frequently. Now ofcourse I am talking of earth here as other stars and planets would have formed at different rates.

but yet experiments can be performed and have been performed showing that it is very likey to have happened, taking random chemicals and putting them in a 'soup' and adding energy such as electricity and they will form builidng blocks of life. Chemicals and elements are naturally attracted to eachother as to fill their valence shells and form stable compounds by either donating or sharing electrons with eachother. You think that the earth as it is now is the most ideal state, but it might not be. Elements form toxic chemicals too, as all elements try to stabilize them self through creating bonds with other elements, there are laws that and natural process that make certain chemicals more likely to form than others. For example dispersion forces, dipole-dipole interactions and hydrogen bonding are basic types of bonds that basic elements make with eachother. Hydrogen bonding is the strongest out of those and shows that a molecule of water is more likely to form when the most abundant forms of hydrogen and oxygen are present and not H3O or HNO because the elements react in such a way that they have a natural tendency to form the matter that we see around us. 

You seem to be overestimating the randomness whilst underestimating the sheer size, scope and scale of the universe. The randomness you describe is the basics of physics and chemistry at work.

Firstly, nearly all those compounds I mentioned are readily found in the Universe and are incredibly common (both in the vacuum of space and in terms of other planets). The elements that make those compunds are formed in stars at different points of their life cycles and are also relatively abundant (stellar nucleosynthesis). Just look at the sheer number of stars in the sky and you'll see it's a constant process that's giving us more of these elements which will go on to chemically react to form simple inorganic and organic compounds necessary for life. This process is relatively common given the abundance of these compounds. These compounds will then react further to form more complex molecules.

Now there is an element of randomness to having the correct coditions to support the formation of these molecules, but you only need a small window of time for this to happen. Chemical reactions can be incredibly fast, taking femto-seconds to complete. We know some enzymes can turnover 30+ million molecules a second. Now with that in mind, it's becomes far more probable that over the course of 4.5 billion years, that the Earth is going to start forming more complex compunds that eventually gave rise to life.

I'm not sure I get your point about the randomness and why so "little" was done with the Earth in 4.5 billion years. Early solar system formation is very chaotic as the gravity from the star sends everything into disarray. In this period you get a lot of high energy physical collisions, and a wide range of different physical and chemical conditions until the particles surrounding the star reach a gravitational equilibrium. As this equilibrium is reached, conditions start to settle and allow the formation of complex chemicals without the dangers of high energy collisions, highly variable radiation etc.

Also, the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years according to wiki (the figure has two sources in the article; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe). 37 million year error rate is actually pretty good given the figure.

Most people follow a religion.. And people have good rational reason to be with religion

My advice?

As early as they can understand, but do it to reinforce their moral structure. Very importantly, teach them independent investation of truth, telling them to keep trying to understand why something is true and let them understand that their or you interpretation of what is true can be false. Also stress to not dislike anyone in any way simply because their ideas are different. Allow them to learn about the ideas of others and keep them openminded.

Moral education is extremely important for children until they are youth, especially in this day and age. It is also very important when they are ages 11-14. That's the time they develope an acute sense of justice and start to see problems and hypocrisies of the world. They may want to do something about it but become frustruated because people don't give them a chance to because many still view them as children. Reinforcing their moral structure is very important during this time and also give them chances to contribute towards the world.

If you are serious about this, which I am sure you are, you yourself should gain a stronge understanding in the different religions and how to apply those teachings in a positive way in your life. Remember that the parent is the first teacher of the children and that they learn from your actions. What you do may shape their future.

I hope this helps

Early earth models show carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N₂) create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. So life starting on earth is pretty bogus and unlikely according to the Miller-Urey experiment which is a pretty old model to begin with.

Even if you get complex organics that is still not RNA and even then, even if you prove life arose from the right conditions that still doesn't disprove Gods hand in it.  Thats why i was saying earlier you can't prove or disprove God using science. I am saying that life and even the universe existing has a far more likely chance if someone is helping it along the way.

Nice try. You took the first sentence out out Wikipedia and left out this important tibit here:

"However, the early Earth may have had significant amounts of iron and carbonate minerals able to neutralize the effects of the nitrites. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen."

The Earth had a lot of iron because of meteors frequently crashing into the planet. Comets, which contain carbonate, also hit Earth often during its infancy. Because the Earth lacked an atmosphere at the time, both types of these spaces rocks easily entered the Earth without burning out.

Also, the burden of proof is on you since the idea of a god or gods were started by no one else, but the people who created it. I may not be able to disprove the existence of a god or gods, but I can definitely disprove THE god you believe in. You are not fooling anyone here...