could it ever be the case that Evolution through natural selection turn out to be false or is there far too much evidence, observations, tests to say otherwise now.

why do you suppose people still believe everything was created even in this day in age?

i know abiogenesis isn't strictly a biology question, but do you think it is perfectly feasible for life to arise from and inanimate object due to chemical reactions or are the odds too great? do you think science will ever crack this?

Evolution is as solid as the theory of gravity, nuances in the mechanisms are hotly debated, but at a fundamental level, it's difficult to concieve of a way it could be shown to be completely false.  Even the 'devonian rabbit' (the idea that an animal could be found hundreds of millions of years before it's supposed ancestors appeared) wouldn't necessarily destroy the entirity of evolution, rather it would shake up the mammal and maybe tetrapod phylogenies (though it would certainly cause a fuss!).

A lot of people think it's reasonably that life could arise from inanimate objects dur to chemical reactions - viruses and very simple bacteria really aren't more than tiny bags of chemicals (and the former is debated as to whether it is even alive or not). However, until someone can demonstrate the process*, it remains a bit of an 'I reckon'.

*Given that we have trouble classifying viruses as life or not, my opinion is that in attempting to demonstrate abiogenesis, we could hit the hurdle of not being able to say whether what is produced is life or not.

I'm just going to answer your question in part and let others chip in about the rest. There is plenty of evidence of evolution by natural selection including the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria.