The evolution theory states that humans evolved from lower life forms. That insects, fish, reptiles, etc. are therefore "lower" life forms than humans, because they evolved gradually over time.
I have some proof that the "lower" life forms are just as complex as "higher" forms.
First of all, anything that is alive is EXTREMELY complex. Even single-celled organisms. Cells are made of series of amino acids, proteins, and lipids, all arranged in a precise manner. The odds of this arranging itself by chance is quite unlikely, in fact, maybe even impossible. Cells can transport nutrients, rid themselves of unwanted material, fight off disease, reproduce through mitosis, and do other tasks.
Do you really think that cells just evolved by chance, and yet are precisely designed to do all these necessary tasks? Based on what we observe about the universe, randomly arranged materials should be disordered, not ordered.
If evolution were true, then cells would start off very simply and get more and more complex. But this doesn't back up what we observe. A single cell is so complex that the chances of it arising on its own by random processes are unfathomably low. Further, even consider the complexity within a single molecule within a single protein within a single cell. Plus, there are still unicellular organisms to this day. How can this be the case if everything has been evolving for billions of years?
Now I am not saying that things do not change over time. I agree that there is speciation and that organisms have variances, but the variances all are based off of a pre-determined genetic starting point. There has never been a single experiment that proves that time and chance can create something new; all time and chance can do make slight variations on what's already there.
Experiments have shown that some of the organic matter in cells can be recreated in a controlled environment. Life has never actually been created by scientists, just a few of the basic building blocks of life. Despite this, these experiments are widely touted as proof that life can arise on its own by chance.
This might sound appealing when talking about evolution, but here are a couple things to consider. For one, these materials were created in a directed and controlled environment, utilizing some of the brightest minds in the world to create a very specific set of conditions. This is far from the conditions of materials floating around in the wild. Also, it is treated as an afterthought that the scientists have only created a few organic materials, rather than having actually created a living cell. That's a pretty important distinction to make, wouldn't you think? And, even if they *could* make a cell in a laboratory, it would only prove that it requires intelligence to make life.
The fossil record doesn't prove evolution either. There is plenty of admitted manipulation and fakery of so-called missing links. Also (thanks to Chris Kendall for mentioning this), why did evolutionary scientist Steven J. Gould need to dream up punctuated equilibrium theory to explain away the absence of fossils? This theory states that gradual, incremental evolution did not occur the way Darwin thought, and that species rapidly changed leaving no fossil trace.
Punctuated equilibrium theory is now a widely accepted evolutionary tenet - and it has to be, because the fossil record to supposedly prove Darwinian evolution simply isn't there. It's common sense that if the fossils existed, there would be no need to make up a theory to explain away their absense.
Knowing this information, the only logical conclusion for me is that all life was created by a wise, super-intelligent being.
