Both sides take a leap of faith at some point. It can be argued which side has to take more of a leap, I guess.. Is that what's going on here or do people actually think they "know"?

Key to life is not being too strong in your convictions, stuck in your inevitably flawed truths.

Our perceptions are so limited; logic so boxed in. Trying to find examples of "new species developing" from a process that is supposed to occur over millenia is just futile. Especially when we cannot precisely define/understand what a "species" even is. There are always exceptions in nature.

Technically, one could say that through man's breeding and domestication of various plant and animal species we have observed a sped-up version evolution. A dog for example, is now a distinct species from a wolf which it was originally bred from. Off the top of my head, I do not have any examples occurring "in nature." Unless you turn to the fossil record, but to make absolute conclusions from this is problematic. So its up to you what you will accept as evidence or not.

The biogenesis vs abiogenesis thing is really a non-starter, a semantic mish-mash. New discoveries may cause this discussion to change but at the moment, with the perspectives involved, it is at an impasse.

Also if the “laws of physics” are universal and can never change, then the Big Bang and Intelligent Design are both equally likely(or unlikely) as both scenarios defy these laws.