Atheism leaves too much room for error.

[Darwinian]

1. Can intelligence arise from a non-intelligent source?

Yes. It clearly has.

2. Can life arise from non-living cells?

What's a non living cell? Surely by definition a cell is living, unless it's dead of course but then it must have been living at some point in order to be a cell.

(The tempature of the universe was too crucial to suggest life didn't arise from an intelligent being).

What? The temperature of the universe is the temperature of the universe. It may be true to say that if it were very different than it actually is, or was, that life may not have arisen but all that means is that it must have been the temperature it is/was otherwise we wouldn't be here to ask the question, or, there might be a very different type of life asking the same question about a very different universe.

Evolution claims the human body adapts to the earth's changing enviroment.

Organisms adapt to changing environments which result in new variations or new species otherwise they die out. This is called vicariance and humans are just as liable to it as any other species. However, humans do have this habit of changing their environment to suit them as well.

3. What would happen to the human species if we didn't adapt to the enviroment?

We adapt the environment to ourselves.

I believe Evolution is a sign of intelligent design. Evolution does not disprove God in any way shape or form.

No it doesn't disprove a god, but neither does it disprove that all life on Earth is as a result of an ancient alien experiment or a computer simulation running in the lab of a stange and alien universe or simply the result of the complex interplay of cause and effect.

Which one is most likely though?

It does however completely dismiss the Abrahamic God as described in Genesis and other works.

Because a universal-negative cannot be proven. Therefore, evolutionists cannot dismiss God in their field of study.

Just because a negative cannot be proved does not mean to say that it has any validity. I can't prove that God doesn't exist but then neither can I prove that the entire Cosmos wasn't sneezed out of the nose of a being called the great green arkleseezure. So by your definition they are both as mathematically probable as each other.

Everything we can study was originated by an intelligent force.

If the Universe looks as though there is no God, behaves as if there were no God and follows predictable rules that don't seem to require the presence of a God then I don't think that it is unreasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no God.