@Sheldon: Muhammad had a flying horse with really stretchy legs. If the horse could see anything at all in the distance, it could reach out it's legs and touch it. The horses wings were on its' thighs and not on its back. It is both male and female, male or female, depending on the story you read. Islam has as many contradictions in its bullshit as does Christianity. So , the story of Muhammad's horse must be true. It's simply told by different people from different perspectives.... And HORSESHIT doesn't really stink!

ROYISM - So, I am not putting forward ID as a scientific proof for god, rather it’s a logical proof.

Will you be posting this proof?

Right, it's time to take a look at the latest pile of bollocks that has passed my way ... sitting comfortably, everyone? Incoming ...

However, the proof of God is based on a simple logic that’s glaring at you at every instance of your existence. All around you, in nature and yourself, this proof is large writ. Look at the complexity in design of plants and animals and you will immediately realize that there is a great creator behind them all.

If you're peddling the fatuous "watchmaker" apologetics here, then that's been demolished wholesale by vast swathes of observational data. Not least, the fact that watchmaking itself exhibits all the characteristics of having had an evolutionary history. Indeed, in that post, I've exposed both the vacuity and the hypocrisy inherent in "design" apologetics on a grand scale.

This is such a powerful logic

Bullshit. It's blind assertion writ large, just like everything else associated with supernaturalism. Indeed. I've never met a supernaturalist who either [1] understands what is required in order to turn the "design" assertion into something other than the product of his rectal passage, and [2] understands the gigantic internal contradiction inherent in "design" apologetics. I don't expect you to be in a position to understand this either, though you could always provide evidence to the contrary if you think you're up to the challenge.

However, evolution wants us to make many leaps of faith in order to circumvent this powerful logic

Bullshit. This creationist lie has been destroyed so many times, it only persists because supernaturalists keep wheeling the resulting zombie about on castors, waving its arms about as a pretence that it's still alive.

At the end of all the complicated explanation, the emergence of the first living cell is still an unfathomable conundrum.

Oh look, it's that tiresome and predictable canard, the conflation of evolution with abiogenesis. Except that this is is a canard, for several reasons. One, evolution concerns itself with what happens once replicating entities exist, and leaves the question of the origin of those replicating entities to a separate discipline. Evolution is a theory originating within biology, whilst the origin of life is a theory arising from a different scientific discipline, namely organic chemistry. Moreover, the reason that organic chemistry is the discipline responsible for origin of life theories, is quite simple - life is chemistry writ large. Millions of chemical reactions are taking place in your body right now, and if some of those reactions stop, you die. As a corollary of this elementary observation, it makes eminent sense to look to chemistry to provide insights into the origin of life, or at least, it does to anyone not addled by adherence to a pre-scientific mythology full of absurdities and nonsense.

Two, as a corollary of this canard conflating two entirely different processes, it fails as an attack on evolution because, lo and behold, scientists have demonstrated in spades that evolutionary processes work on entities other than biological entities. I have a nice paper in my collection, documenting the application of evolutionary algorithms to spacecraft antenna design, and the 'evolved' antenna was flown on a real spacecraft to test if it worked. Which, wait for it, it did. Indeed, evolutionary algorithms are being pressed into service to "design" a wide range of entities, including computer motherboards. The diligent will not find it difficult to locate relevant scientific papers covering such developments.

As for your assertion that the emergence of the first living cell is "an unfathomable conundrum", well this is bullshit too, and I've provided a fairly comprehensive overview of much of the recent work in the field here. Indeed, one of the realisations that quickly dawns upon anyone who actually reads the relevant scientific literature, instead of relying upon apologetics, is that every time a chemical reaction has been postulated to be implicated in the origin of life, laboratory test of that reaction demonstrates that said reaction works. It produces the results postulated to be produced by the scientists in question. Moreover, while examining postulated reactions for their viability as origin-of-life reactions, scientists in the field have been on occasion, pleasantly surprised to find new reactions that they did not previously suspect as being implicated in the origin of life, but which provide elegant and simple solutions to parts of the pathway. Some recent papers by John Sutherland constitute a nice example of this.

Oh, and the state of the art in abiogenesis research has now moved on to model protocells and their behaviour. I'll try and find some illustrative papers to bring here in this vein.

Design is an observable fact in nature.

Poppycock. The biosphere is littered with examples of features in living organisms that are absurd from the standpoint of the "design" assertion, but which make eminent sense in the light of evolution. For example, from the world of entomology, which I've spent some time studying, there exist species of Carabid beetles whose wings are fully functional, but which will never use them for flight. Why? Because the elytra of these species (the wing coverings that beetles possess, which are actually a modification of the first pair of wings) are fused shut. Now any genuine "designer" wouldn't produce a crock such as this. If the beetles didn't need wings, they would simply be deleted, with no trace of their having been present. Why include an entirely surplus anatomical feature in an organism not needing it?

Once again, you don't know what it takes to turn the "design" assertion into something other than the product of your rectal passage.

specified complexity

Oh dear, not Dembski's garbage. Which even Dembski himself has now abandoned.

i.e. an arrangement of primitive parts in a highly specific order for accomplishing a task.

Which has been demonstrated time and again in the scientific literature, to arise via testable natural processes, without any magic intervention.

This can also be called information. Information requires planning and foresight… in other words intelligence.

Oh dear, you really are out of your depth here, aren't you? I destroyed creationist canards about "information" comprehensively in this previous post. You obviously never encountered any of the proper, rigorous work on information by people such as Turing or Kolmogorov. Oh, and that post includes citations for 11 papers covering the evolvability of the genetic code, just in case you want to post inane canards about that topic as well.

And the assumption is that it’s owing to common descent.

BZZZZT! ERROR!

Common descent is NOT an "assumption", it's a demonstrable fact. There are three routes via which this has been established, namely:

[1] Examining the patterns that emerge when organisms inherit characteristics via descent with modification, including the use of genetic audit trails in modern work;

[2] Developing testable, robust phylogenies;

[3] Formal tests of universal common descent.

Indeed, if your assertion above, with the implication that common descent never happened, was something other than the product of your rectal passage, then modern phylogenetic data would not even exist, which on its own destroys your assertion. But, better than that, Douglas Theobald provided, in a seminal paper submitted to Nature, a formal test of universal common ancestry, by comparing the goodness of fit of different models, a single-ancestry model and various multiple-ancestry models. The results of that test, as I cover in detail in this exposition of that paper, demonstrate that UCA is the best fit to the observational data by a massive margin - a better fit by a factor of ten to the power of two thousand, eight hundred and sixty, to be precise. So before you start dismissing common ancestry, you might want to learn something about the work that has been done on this subject.

When facts contradict the assumption, the theory makes adjustments to keep the assumptions intact.

Bare faced lie. This is a practice we leave to supernaturalists and their apologetics.

What actually happens in scientific work is that [1] any known assumptions are honestly stated up front, and [2] work is then undertaken, either to validate those assumptions or remove them altogether. I know it's difficult for someone who thinks apologetics is something other than made up shit to understand this, but this is what happens in actual scientific work.

For example, the similarity between the human eye and the octopus eye, violates the common descent assumption, because the two are separated by a long way in the evolution tree. And so, the theory brings in another assumption, which is convergence.

Bollocks. Convergence is an observed fact. Or have you not noticed how different vertebrate groups that acquired wings, had a habit of acquiring similar structures? The data says it happened. Suck on it. Oh, and as for the evolution of the eye, you do realise that eyes have appeared independently forty different times in different lineages?

Do stop lying about science.

What I am driving at is that the theory is built on a set of unfalsifiable assumptions.

Bare faced lie. Oh wait, Douglas Theobald provided a 100,000 word dissertation containing explicit statements of what it would take to falsify evolutionary theory. Go and fucking read it.

Oh, and if you make the mistake of trying to peddle the "irreducible complexity" drivel Behe cooked up, once again, I've been there and done that>. That post also exposes many of the lies peddled by the ID brigade, the fatuously sloppy nature of Behe's so-called "research", and the manner in which Judge Jones, presiding over the Dover Trial, noted that the IDists in court were prepared to perjure themselves in order to defend what was, in actuality, creationist ideology.

In short, those of us who paid attention in class have done our research, and found assertions such as the ones you've presented here to be complete and utter hooey. But I don't suppose this will stop you lying about science, will it?